Robert James Knupp v. David Hendrickson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 27, 1999
Docket99-2947
StatusUnpublished

This text of Robert James Knupp v. David Hendrickson (Robert James Knupp v. David Hendrickson) 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
Robert James Knupp v. David Hendrickson, (8th Cir. 1999).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 99-2947 ___________

Robert James Knupp, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. David Hendrickson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: September 20, 1999

Filed: September 27, 1999 ___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert James Knupp appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as time-barred and an improper challenge to his criminal conviction. After carefully reviewing the district court record and Mr. Knupp’s brief, we conclude the court did not err for several reasons: (1) Mr. Knupp’s action was barred by Iowa’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries, see Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 279-80 (1985) (§ 1983 actions are characterized as personal injury actions for

1 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. determining in federal court which state statute of limitations to borrow); Wycoff v. Menke, 773 F.2d 983, 984 (8th Cir. 1985) (applying Iowa’s personal injury statute of limitations to bar § 1983 claim), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1028 (1986); (2) Mr. Knupp brought his damages action against defendants who are protected by judicial immunity, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (judicial immunity overcome only if judge takes actions not within judicial capacity or absent all jurisdiction); and (3) Mr. Knupp may not recover damages here without proving his conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or questioned by a habeas corpus writ, see Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Therefore, we affirm pursuant to Eighth Circuit Rule 47B.

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

Related

Wilson v. Garcia
471 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Mireles v. Waco
502 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert James Knupp v. David Hendrickson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-james-knupp-v-david-hendrickson-ca8-1999.