Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03854/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03854-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3854

___________

Jimmy L. Hood, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Department of Correction; Gaylon Lay, *

Warden; Carl Griswold, Employee, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 17, 2006

Filed: July 12, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Hood (Hood), an employee of the Arkansas Department of Correction

(ADC) brought an action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The

district court1

 granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and finding no

constitutional violations, the court opted not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Hood’s state-law claim.

Appellate Case: 04-3854 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066584
-2-

Having reviewed the record and appellate submissions, see Murphy v. Mo.

Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.) (de novo review), cert. denied, 543 U.S.

991 (2004), we agree with the district court that Hood’s federal claims were barred by

the Eleventh Amendment, because he named the defendants only in their official

capacities. See Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997) (Eleventh

Amendment immunity bars § 1983 damages claim against State and its agencies);

Robb v. Hungerbeeler, 370 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (official-capacity suit is

treated as suit against government entity), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1054 (2005); Nix v.

Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989) (to state individual-capacity claim,

complaint must either specifically name defendants in their individual capacities or

must involve actions taken by government agents outside scope of official duties).

Although the Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective injunctive relief, see Nix,

879 F.2d at 432, Hood never explained how any ADC policy was unconstitutional, see

id. at 433 (to establish liability in official-capacity suit under § 1983, plaintiff must

show, inter alia, that official named in suit took action pursuant to unconstitutional

governmental policy or custom).

Accordingly, we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

However, we clarify that dismissal of the state-law claim was without prejudice. See

Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied,

519 U.S. 968 (1996).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3854 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066584