Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01740/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01740-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1740

___________

Steven M. Jacob; Dan Meis, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Robert Houston, in his individual and *

official capacity as Director of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

Nebraska Department of Correctional *

Services; Nebraska Department of *

Correctional Services, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2007 

Filed: July 10, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

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

Appellate Case: 06-1740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2007 Entry ID: 3327957
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska. 

-2-

unusual punishment, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court1

 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. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2007 Entry ID: 3327957