Michele Moore v. Joyce Plock

377 F. App'x 563

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 2, 2010
• Docket: 10-1250
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Former Nebraska inmate Michele Moore appeals the district court’s 1 preser-vice dismissal without prejudice of her 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint. After careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that Moore’s claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (because Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from suit, neither state nor its officials acting in their official capacity are “persons” under § 1983); Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir.2007) (Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state agency for any kind of relief); Larson v. Kemp-ker, 414 F.3d 936, 939 n. 3 (8th Cir.2005) (Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 lawsuit against state agency even if entity is moving force behind deprivation of federal right (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985))); Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir.1999) (unless pleading expressly and unambiguously states public official is sued in individual capacity, it will be assumed that defendant is sued only in official capacity).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1 . The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.