Carroll Jackson v. Jon Sanford

Eighth Circuit

Carroll Jackson v. Jon Sanford

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 1998

Docket97-3982

StatusUnpublished

This text of Carroll Jackson v. Jon Sanford (Carroll Jackson v. Jon Sanford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll Jackson v. Jon Sanford, (8th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 97-3982 ___________

Carroll Jackson; Nadine Jackson, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jon Sanford, Attorney; Henry * Eastern District of Arkansas. Wilkerson, Judge; William Bullock, * Judge, * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: March 6, 1998 Filed: March 18, 1998 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Carroll Jackson and his wife, Nadine Jackson, appeal the district court&s1 dismissal of their complaint which alleged defendants conspired to predetermine the outcome in two previous cases. After careful review of the record and the parties& briefs we conclude the district court properly dismissed the claims against the judges because they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-78 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc), cited with approval by, Moses v.

1 The HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Parwatikar, 813 F.2d 891, 893 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832 (1987). We also conclude the district court properly dismissed the Jacksons& civil rights conspiracy claims because they were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Guy v. Swift & Co., 612 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (where it appears on face of complaint that statute of limitations has run, action properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the federal claims. As to the Jacksons& state law claims, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1367(d); Labickas v. Arkansas State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 395 (1996).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 97-3982 ___________

Carroll Jackson; Nadine Jackson, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jon Sanford, Attorney; Henry * Eastern District of Arkansas. Wilkerson, Judge; William Bullock, * Judge, * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: March 6, 1998 Filed: March 18, 1998 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Carroll Jackson and his wife, Nadine Jackson, appeal the district court&s1 dismissal of their complaint which alleged defendants conspired to predetermine the outcome in two previous cases. After careful review of the record and the parties& briefs we conclude the district court properly dismissed the claims against the judges because they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-78 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc), cited with approval by, Moses v.

1 The HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Parwatikar, 813 F.2d 891, 893 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832 (1987). We also conclude the district court properly dismissed the Jacksons& civil rights conspiracy claims because they were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Guy v. Swift & Co., 612 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (where it appears on face of complaint that statute of limitations has run, action properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the federal claims. As to the Jacksons& state law claims, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1367(d); Labickas v. Arkansas State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 395 (1996).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carroll Jackson v. Jon Sanford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-jackson-v-jon-sanford-ca8-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack