Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01519/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01519-0/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. 06-1519

___________

Duane L. Hartman; DLH, Inc., *

a Nebraska Corporation, doing business *

as Coaches Sports Bar & Grill, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Bob Workman, In his individual *

and official capacity as a member, or *

former member, of the Board of *

Commissioners of Lancaster County, *

Nebraska; Linda Steinman, In her *

individual and official capacity as a *

member, or former member, of the *

Board of Commissioners of Lancaster *

County, Nebraska; Larry Hudkins, *

In his individual and official capacity as *

a member, or former member, of the *

Board of Commissioners of Lancaster *

County, Nebraska; Bernie Heier, In *

his individual and official capacity as a *

member, or former member, of the *

Board of Commissioners of Lancaster *

County, Nebraska; Kathy Campbell, *

In her individual and official capacity *

as a member, or former member, of *

the Board of Commissioners of *

Lancaster County, Nebraska; *

Ray Stevens, In his official capacity as *

a current member of the Lancaster *

County Board of Commissioners; *

Appellate Case: 06-1519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2007 Entry ID: 3270245
1

DLH’s causes of action against the current and former members of the

Lancaster County Board of Commissioners (Commissioners) in their official

capacities are treated as causes of action against Lancaster County. See Thomas v. St.

Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 447 F.3d 1082, 1083 n.1 (8th Cir. 2006). The district

court dismissed the causes of action against the Commissioners in their individual

capacities. Therefore, the real party in interest is Lancaster County. See Kentucky v.

Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). 

2

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska. 

-2-

Deb Schorr, In her official capacity as a *

current member of the Lancaster *

County Board of Commissioners; *

Lancaster County, Nebraska, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 20, 2006

Filed: January 23, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Duane L. Hartman and DLH, Inc. (collectively, DLH) filed a complaint against

Lancaster County, Nebraska (Lancaster County),1

 alleging general violations of

procedural due process and a conspiracy to deprive DLH of property without

procedural due process. After a bench trial, the district court2

 entered judgment for

Lancaster County. DLH appeals. 

Appellate Case: 06-1519 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2007 Entry ID: 3270245
3

In relevant part, the Amended Complaint alleged, “[t]he actions of [Lancaster

County] . . . constitute a violation of [DLH’s] right not to be deprived of property

without due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Assuming

arguendo this language is broad enough to raise a substantive due process claim, DLH

waived any substantive due process claim by not including it in the Pretrial Order.

The issues identified in the Pretrial Order supersede any issues raised in the Complaint

and Amended Complaint. Lane v. Geiger-Berger Assocs., 608 F.2d 1148, 1152-53

(8th Cir. 1979); 6A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 1522 (2d ed. 1990) (saying “the pretrial order is treated as

superseding the pleadings and establishing the issues to be considered at trial”); see

also United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d 496, 499 (8th Cir. 2004); In

re Control Data Corp. Sec. Litig., 933 F.2d 616, 621 (8th Cir. 1991) (“[The] pre-trial

order controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified at the trial to

prevent manifest injustice. Consequently, a party may not offer evidence or advance

theories which violate the terms of a pre-trial order.” (citations and quotations

omitted)).

-3-

On appeal, DLH argues Lancaster County’s actions toward DLH constituted a

violation of substantive due process. However, DLH did not allege a substantive due

process claim in its Complaint or its Amended Complaint, and did not raise a

substantive due process issue in the Order of Final Pre-Trial Conference (Pretrial

Order).3

 The Pretrial Order identified procedural due process issues (“[w]as

procedural due process afforded to [DLH]”) and similar state claims remaining for the

court to resolve, including: (1) did DLH possess a property interest for purposes of the

Due Process Clause, (2) was DLH afforded a due opportunity to protect its property

interest, (3) were the statutory criteria adhered to and adequate, (4) were the

Commissioners impartial, and (5) what are DLH’s damages. As a result, the district

court did not address any substantive due process claim in its Memorandum Opinion.

Ordinarily, we will not consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal.

P & O Nedlloyd, Ltd. v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 462 F.3d 1015, 1019 (8th Cir. 2006)

(“We consider a newly raised argument only if it is purely legal and requires no

additional factual development, or if a manifest injustice would otherwise result.”

Appellate Case: 06-1519 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/23/2007 Entry ID: 3270245
-4-

(quoting Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 F.3d 720, 725 (8th Cir. 2002))). Nothing

justifies considering DLH’s new argument. 

To the extent DLH’s appeal could be broadly interpreted to continue its

procedural due process claims, we conclude the district court’s findings of fact are not

clearly erroneous and its final conclusion that DLH failed to establish a deprivation

of property sufficient to state a due process claim is sound. Accordingly, we affirm.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1519 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/23/2007 Entry ID: 3270245