Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02248/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jon Bruning
Appellee
Michael Jacobson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2248

___________

Michael Jacobson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jon Bruning, in his official capacity *

as the Attorney General of Nebraska, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 27, 2008

Filed: June 16, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Jacobson (Jacobson) appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal without

prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Nebraska Attorney General Jon

Bruning. Upon de novo review, see Thomas v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 447

F.3d 1082, 1084-85 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting an appellate court reviews de novo a

district court’s dismissal based on sovereign immunity), we conclude dismissal was

proper because Jacobson’s complaint was barred by sovereign immunity. See Will

Appellate Case: 07-2248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2008 Entry ID: 3443488
-2-

v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (concluding a suit against a

state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the official’s office, and as

such is no different than a suit against the state itself). Although Jacobson argues on

appeal his complaint fell within the Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), exception

to sovereign immunity, we conclude the exception did not apply because Jacobson’s

suit essentially questioned the state’s ownership in and authority to regulate

groundwater, and thus implicated special sovereignty interests. See Union Elec. Co.

v. Mo. Dep’t of Conservation, 366 F.3d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that,

although a determination of Ex parte Young’s applicability does not look to the merits

of a claim, courts can ask whether a suit implicates special sovereignty interests

making the exception unavailable); Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S.

261, 281-82, 287 (1997) (stating the Ex parte Young exception was not available in

the tribe’s suit against the state because the suit was the functional equivalent of a

quiet title action, and the tribe sought a determination that certain lands were not

within the regulatory jurisdiction of the state; and the requested relief would bar the

state’s officers from exercising authority over particular lands and waters). Cf. Dept

of Rev. of Kentucky v. Davis, 128 S. Ct. 1801, 1810-11, 2008 WL 2078187 (declaring

a state may exempt interest on its own municipal bonds from taxation while taxing

interest on out of state bonds without violating the Commerce Clause, because “the

issuance of debt securities to pay for public projects is a quintessentially public

function” of the state. Therefore, “apprehension in . . . unprecedented . . . interference

with a traditional government function is just as warranted here, where [respondents]

would have us invalidate a century-old taxing practice . . . presently employed by 41

States . . . and affirmatively supported by all of them . . . .”) (citations and quotation

omitted).

We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2008 Entry ID: 3443488