Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02425/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02425-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Ralph Erickson, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2425

___________

Roland Riemers; Mitch Sanderson, *

individually and on behalf of all *

persons similarly situated, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

State of North Dakota, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2006

Filed: June 16, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roland Riemers and Mitch Sanderson (plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s1

dismissal of their pro se complaint against the State of North Dakota as the sole

defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that North Dakota unlawfully discriminates against noncustodial parents in all areas of domestic relations. Because plaintiffs have failed to

show that Congress has abrogated North Dakota’s Eleventh Amendment immunity

Appellate Case: 05-2425 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057377
2

Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

-2-

or that North Dakota has waived immunity with regard to plaintiffs’ allegations, we

agree with the district court that the Eleventh Amendment bars this suit. 

We also reject plaintiffs’ contention that the Ex Parte Young2

 exception saves

their claims for injunctive relief. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf &

Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993) (Ex Parte Young doctrine creates exception to

Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to injunctive relief against state officials;

doctrine has no application in suits against States and their agencies, which are barred

regardless of relief sought). Finally, we reject plaintiffs’ contentions that this court

should provide them with leave to amend their complaint, see Artis v. Francis Howell

N. Band Booster Ass’n, 161 F.3d 1178, 1182 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying request on

appeal to amend complaint to name defendant in his personal capacity, where plaintiff

had had ample time to seek amendment, but failed to do so), and that dismissal should

have been without prejudice, see Tex. Cmty. Bank v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 232

F.3d 942, 943 (8th Cir. 2000) (if State’s Eleventh Amendment argument is

meritorious, it is entitled to preclude possibility of re-filing by having claim dismissed

with prejudice). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2425 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057377