Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01846/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01846-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1846

___________

Enoch E. Gould, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Timothy Faver; Randal R. Burg; David * District of Minnesota.

P. Frank; Joseph J. Gould; Jeannine *

Gould; Winfield W. Gould; Michael M. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Gould; Samuel S. Gould; Stephen S. *

Gould; Judy Gould; Peter P. Gould; *

Elaine Gould; Roland L. Sarratt; Frank *

Fann; Douglas Ferrier; Ryan K. Kieson, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 3, 2006

Filed: March 9, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 05-1846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2006 Entry ID: 2018926
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of

Minnesota. 

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Enoch Gould (plaintiff) appeals from the district court's1

 order granting

defendants' various motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss, in this suit

brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). Following our de novo review, see

Syverson v. Firepond, Inc., 383 F.3d 745, 749 (8th Cir. 2004) (grant of judgment on

pleadings reviewed de novo); MM&S Fin., Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 364

F.3d 908, 909 (8th Cir. 2004) (grant of motion to dismiss reviewed de novo), we

affirm.

Specifically, we agree with the district court that plaintiff's section 1983 claim

against the three state defendants (attorneys for a county) fails for lack of standing or,

alternatively, for failure to assert a deprivation of a cognizable constitutional right.

See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 & n.6 (1973) (plaintiff lacked

standing to challenge state criminal statute for its failure to criminalize certain conduct

because she could not show direct nexus between the lack of prosecution of another

and vindication of her interests; as private citizen, she lacked judicially cognizable

interest in prosecution of another); Johnson v. City of Evanston, 250 F.3d 560, 563

(7th Cir. 2001) (defendants were state actors for purposes of § 1983 claim, but

plaintiff lacked standing to complain about their refusal to prosecute another; failure

to protect plaintiff from other citizen raises issue under state law rather than federal

law because Constitution does not require states to protect citizens from each other

(citing DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)). 

Appellate Case: 05-1846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2006 Entry ID: 2018926
-3-

The district court also correctly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim against

the remaining defendants, all of whom are undisputedly private actors. See Dossett

v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 951 (8th Cir. 2005) (under § 1983, plaintiff must

establish not only that private actor caused deprivation of constitutional rights, but

also that private actor willfully participated with state officials and reached mutual

understanding concerning unlawful objective of conspiracy). 

Finally, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs'

section 1985(3) claims against the private-actor defendants because, even assuming

plaintiff sufficiently alleged an invidiously discriminatory class-based animus due to

his religious beliefs, none of the rights allegedly targeted by the conspiracy are

constitutionally protected from private encroachment. See Federer v. Gephardt,

363 F.3d 754, 759-60 (8th Cir. 2004) (for private conspiracy to come within ambit of

first clause of § 1985(3), plaintiff must establish (1) that racial or otherwise classbased invidiously discriminatory animus lay behind conspiracy and (2) that conspiracy

was aimed at interfering with right protected against private, as well as official,

encroachment; First Amendment rights are not protected against private encroachment

under § 1985(3)); Med. Inst. of Minn. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Trade & Technical Sch., 817

F.2d 1310, 1312 (8th Cir. 1987) (private action, no matter how egregious, cannot

violate federal constitutional equal protection or due process guarantees).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1846 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/09/2006 Entry ID: 2018926