Steven M. Jacob v. Robert Houston

Eighth Circuit

Steven M. Jacob v. Robert Houston

227 F. App'x 538

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 2007

Docket06-1740

StatusUnpublished

This text of 227 F. App'x 538 (Steven M. Jacob v. Robert Houston) 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 M. Jacob v. Robert Houston, 227 F. App'x 538 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Steven Jacob and Daniel Meis are serving sentences of life imprisonment in Nebraska for first-degree murder. They filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, claiming that denying them eligibility for parole violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court 1 found plaintiffs had stated no federal claim, dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and later denied plaintiffs’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Upon de novo review of the dismissal, see Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that plaintiffs failed to state any federal claim, see Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1312 (8th Cir.1997) (alleged violation of state law does not by itself state claim under § 1983). The court also properly refused to enter a default judgment, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4)(A); did not err in substituting Robert Houston for Harold Clarke; and did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motion, see Flannery v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 425, 427-28 (8th Cir.1998) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending motion to supplement.

1

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

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

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Steven Jacob and Daniel Meis are serving sentences of life imprisonment in Nebraska for first-degree murder. They filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, claiming that denying them eligibility for parole violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court 1 found plaintiffs had stated no federal claim, dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and later denied plaintiffs’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Upon de novo review of the dismissal, see Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that plaintiffs failed to state any federal claim, see Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1312 (8th Cir.1997) (alleged violation of state law does not by itself state claim under § 1983). The court also properly refused to enter a default judgment, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4)(A); did not err in substituting Robert Houston for Harold Clarke; and did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motion, see Flannery v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 425, 427-28 (8th Cir.1998) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending motion to supplement.

1

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 F. App'x 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-m-jacob-v-robert-houston-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack