William Deuerlein v. Nebraska CPS

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 12, 2020
Docket19-2739
StatusUnpublished

This text of William Deuerlein v. Nebraska CPS (William Deuerlein v. Nebraska CPS) 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
William Deuerlein v. Nebraska CPS, (8th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-2739 ___________________________

William L. Deuerlein

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Nebraska Child Protective Services; Dana D. Sears; Nelson G. Natalie; Kirk Kapperman; Anne Paine; Dana Devries Gellerman; Kevin Urbom; Bob Rogers; Daelene Rogers

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________

Submitted: February 7, 2020 Filed: February 12, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. William Deuerlein appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se action. Upon careful review, we affirm. See Kaden v. Slykhuis, 651 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (de novo review of dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Ginters v. Frazier, 614 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of district court’s issue preclusion determination). We agree that Deuerlein did not have a private right of action under the criminal statute he cited, see Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007) (18 U.S.C. § 371 is criminal statute that does not provide private right of action); and that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims were precluded by the district court’s prior dismissal of the same claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ginters, 614 F.3d at 825 (issue preclusion doctrine applies to question of subject matter jurisdiction); Robinette v. Jones, 476 F.3d 585, 589 (8th Cir. 2007) (requirements for issue preclusion). We also find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Deuerlein’s post-judgment motion.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

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

Related

Ginters v. Frazier
614 F.3d 822 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
Andrews v. Heaton
483 F.3d 1070 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
Kaden v. Slykhuis
651 F.3d 966 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William Deuerlein v. Nebraska CPS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-deuerlein-v-nebraska-cps-ca8-2020.