Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02171/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02171-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2171

___________

William G. Carter, and others similarly *

situated, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Julia Hassell, (SA); Jay Englehart; *

Dillian Hogan; Janet Sidebottom, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 21, 2005

 Filed: October 25, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William G. Carter, confined to the Missouri Sexual Offender Treatment Center,

brought an action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. On

defendants’ motion, the district court1

 dismissed the complaint for failure to state a

claim. Having reviewed the record and appellate submissions, see Atkinson v. Bohn,

91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (de novo review), we agree Carter’s

Appellate Case: 05-2171 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2005 Entry ID: 1966969
-2-

federal claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment because he named defendants

only in their official capacities. See Randolph v. Rogers, 170 F.3d 850, 859 (8th Cir.

1999) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal court from ordering state officials to

conform conduct to state law); Morstad v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 147 F.3d 741,

743-44 (8th Cir. 1998) (Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 lawsuit against

state official in official capacity even if state entity is moving force behind

deprivation of federal rights); Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997)

(without clear statement that officials are being sued in personal capacities, complaint

is interpreted as including only official-capacity claims).

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

dismissal of the state-law malpractice claim--over which the district court implicitly

refused to exercise jurisdiction, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 784-86 (8th Cir.

1998)--to be a dismissal without prejudice, Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333,

334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 968 (1996). 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2171 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2005 Entry ID: 1966969