Laura Baldwin v. John Roberts, Jr.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2909 ___________________________

Laura Marie Baldwin

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.; Justice Clarence Thomas; Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.; Justice Neil M. Gorsuch; Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh; Justice Sonia Sotomayor; Justice Elena Kagan; Justice Amy Coney Barrett; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson; Judge Stephen R. Bough; Judge Joshua C. Devine; Paul Martin Wade; Crystal Kent; Walter Jording Paschal; Julia A. Paulus; Unnamed Roes and Does, 1-20

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Filed: March 17, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Laura Baldwin appeals following the district court’s1 judgment granting defendants’ motions to dismiss her civil rights action, which consisted of claims against defendants who had some role in her state criminal proceedings and in her prior federal lawsuit. As the district court explained in its rulings, to the extent that Baldwin’s claims were not subject to dismissal based on ongoing criminal proceedings, see Wassef v. Tibben, 68 F.4th 1083, 1086-87 (8th Cir. 2023) (abstention doctrine), the federal and state judges were protected by immunity, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam); the prosecutor was protected by immunity, see Saterdalen v. Spencer, 725 F.3d 838, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2013); and Baldwin’s complaint failed to sufficiently plead facts to state a claim against the remaining defendants, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (pleading requirements); see also Ryno v. City of Waynesville, 58 F.4th 995, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2023) (qualified immunity). We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of reconsideration, and no merit to Baldwin’s assertions that the district court failed to address her various arguments or rule on her motions.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The pending motion to take judicial notice of court records in Baldwin’s state criminal proceeding is denied as moot. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Eric F. Melgren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-