Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03833/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03833-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3833

___________

Jeff M. Gaslin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Shelly Fassler; Mille Lacs *

County Family Services, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 24, 2010

Filed: May 27, 2010 

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeff M. Gaslin filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that defendants

violated his Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they ignored his objection

to his ex-wife receiving public funds to care for their physically disabled child. The

district court1

 granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and Gaslin appeals. For the

following reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Appellate Case: 09-3833 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2010 Entry ID: 3668824
-2-

Because Gaslin did not suffer any injury in fact, he lacked standing to bring his

claims in federal court. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d

771, 773 (8th Cir. 2009) (sua sponte consideration of jurisdictional issues); Jewell v.

United States, 548 F.3d 1168, 1172 (8th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must establish subject

matter jurisdiction, for which standing is prerequisite; standing requires “injury in

fact,” i.e., actual or imminent concrete and particularized invasion to legally protected

interest; injury must be fairly traceable to challenged action of defendant and

redressable by favorable decision). Specifically, we fail to see how defendants’

conduct affected any property or liberty interest belonging to Gaslin, see Young v.

City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001) (analysis of procedural and

substantive due process claims begins with examination of interest allegedly violated);

and the Ninth Amendment does not create substantive rights beyond those conferred

by governing law, see Martinez-Rivera v. Sanchez Ramos, 498 F.3d 3, 9 (1st Cir.

2007). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, but we modify the

dismissal to be without prejudice.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3833 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2010 Entry ID: 3668824