Steven H. Sterling, Darlene Williams, and Terrie Purl v. Edward E. Calvin

Eighth Circuit

Steven H. Sterling, Darlene Williams, and Terrie Purl v. Edward E. Calvin

874 F.2d 571, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6598, 1989 WL 48017

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1989

Docket88-2428

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 874 F.2d 571 (Steven H. Sterling, Darlene Williams, and Terrie Purl v. Edward E. Calvin) 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

Steven H. Sterling, Darlene Williams, and Terrie Purl v. Edward E. Calvin, 874 F.2d 571, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6598, 1989 WL 48017 (8th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 against the Hon. Edward E. Calvin, Judge of the Municipal Court for the City of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. The District Court 1 dismissed the complaint on summary judgment, Sterling v. Calvin, 694 F.Supp. 1382 (E.D.Mo.1988). We affirm.

As the District Court noted, in order to obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show some substantial likelihood that past conduct alleged to be illegal will recur. Plaintiffs here have failed to make such a showing. They claim that Judge Calvin has been guilty of unconstitutional practices in the past, but they make absolutely no showing that such practices are likely to affect them in the future. Such a showing is required. This is not a class action. It is an individual case brought by three named plaintiffs, and they are not eligible for injunctive relief merely on the basis of past conduct.

We observe, in addition, that if the allegedly illegal conduct should recur in the future, federal injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will not thereby become automatically available. Plaintiffs have, so far as we now know, completely adequate remedies under state law. They can obtain appellate review in the state courts of the allegedly unlawful practices of defendant. See Bonner v. Circuit Court, 526 F.2d 1331, 1336 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 946, 96 S.Ct. 1418, 47 L.Ed.2d 353 (1976). Judicial officers are not absolutely immune from suits for injunction under § 1983, Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984), but such relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy under state law exists. Id. at 542 & n. 22, 104 S.Ct. at 1981 & n. 22.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Stephen Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 against the Hon. Edward E. Calvin, Judge of the Municipal Court for the City of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. The District Court 1 dismissed the complaint on summary judgment, Sterling v. Calvin, 694 F.Supp. 1382 (E.D.Mo.1988). We affirm.

As the District Court noted, in order to obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show some substantial likelihood that past conduct alleged to be illegal will recur. Plaintiffs here have failed to make such a showing. They claim that Judge Calvin has been guilty of unconstitutional practices in the past, but they make absolutely no showing that such practices are likely to affect them in the future. Such a showing is required. This is not a class action. It is an individual case brought by three named plaintiffs, and they are not eligible for injunctive relief merely on the basis of past conduct.

We observe, in addition, that if the allegedly illegal conduct should recur in the future, federal injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will not thereby become automatically available. Plaintiffs have, so far as we now know, completely adequate remedies under state law. They can obtain appellate review in the state courts of the allegedly unlawful practices of defendant. See Bonner v. Circuit Court, 526 F.2d 1331, 1336 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 946, 96 S.Ct. 1418, 47 L.Ed.2d 353 (1976). Judicial officers are not absolutely immune from suits for injunction under § 1983, Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984), but such relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy under state law exists. Id. at 542 & n. 22, 104 S.Ct. at 1981 & n. 22.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Stephen Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.

Ivron Butler, Frank A. Ledferd, David Corder, Hershel Marsh, Doyle Kirkman, Jay M. French v. Denis Dowd, Daniel Henry, Phil Banks, Bruce Scott, Tim Sellars. Ivron Butler, Frank A. Ledferd, David Corder, Hershel Marsh, Doyle Kirkman, Jay M. French v. Denis Dowd, Daniel Henry, Phil Banks, Bruce Scott, Tim Sellars. Ivron Butler, Frank A. Ledferd, David Corder, Hershel Marsh, Doyle Kirkman, Jay M. French v. Denis Dowd, Daniel Henry, Phil Banks, Bruce Scott, Tim Sellars

979 F.2d 661 (Eighth Circuit, 1992)

Johnson v. Boreani

946 F.2d 67 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)

946 F.2d 67 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 F.2d 571, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6598, 1989 WL 48017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-h-sterling-darlene-williams-and-terrie-purl-v-edward-e-calvin-ca8-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack