Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-02236/USCOURTS-ca8-10-02236-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kendall Allison
Appellee
City of North Platte
Appellee
Martin Gutschenritter
Appellee
Jeanne Hinrich
Appellee
Marlin E. Jones
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2236

___________

Marlin E. Jones, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska

City of North Platte; Martin *

Gutschenritter, Chief of Police; Kendall * [UNPUBLISHED]

Allison, Police Officer; Jeanne Hinrich, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2010

Filed: July 6, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Marlin Jones filed his initial complaint on January 6, 2010, alleging

a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court1

 then granted Jones leave

to amend his complaint to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his

amended complaint, Jones named as defendants the City of North Platte, Nebraska and

two North Platte police officers, Martin Gutschenritter and Kendall Allison, referring

Appellate Case: 10-2236 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2010 Entry ID: 3680555
-2-

to the group as North Platte Defendants. Jones also named Jeanne Hinrich, a resident

of North Platte, as a defendant. 

On April 20, 2010, the district court, through its own motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), found Jones’s complaint failed to a state a claim upon which relief

could be granted. The district court allowed Jones the opportunity to amend his

complaint a second time. Jones did amend the complaint, but the district court again

dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The initial complaint, as well as the amended complaint, allege the defendants

caused Jones mental anguish, for which he seeks $500,000 in damages. The

complaint details a police visit by defendants Gutschenritter and Allison to Jones’s

home on November 19, 2009. Jones alleges the officers came to his home to

investigate an informant’s tip that Jones planned to kill someone. When Jones denied

the allegation, the officers left. Jones claims that through these actions Gutschenritter

and Allison harassed and intimidated him. Also, Jones alleges he cannot obtain the

police reports on this incident, despite numerous attempts. Finally, Jones claims the

City of North Platte does not properly train its employees because these officers came

to his house without probable cause.

In his allegations against Hinrich, Jones claims that in 2009 Hinrich attempted

to obtain a protective order against him in Nebraska state court. Jones alleges Hinrich

knowingly lied under oath in an attempt to obtain the protective order. Jones requests

that Hinrich “be made to show cause why she should not be prosecuted for perjury.”

In dismissing the claim, the district court first determined that Jones was suing

the North Platte Defendants in their official capacities, which in effect meant that he

was suing the city. Because of this, the court found that to state a cause of action

under § 1983, Jones must make a showing that it was the policy or custom of the city

to engage in the acts that violated his rights. The district court found that Jones did

Appellate Case: 10-2236 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2010 Entry ID: 3680555
-3-

not allege in any way that it was custom or policy for the city to engage in

unconstitutional conduct or that unconstitutional custom or policy led to his injuries.

Next, the district court dismissed the claim against Hinrich because, liberally

construed, the relief Jones appears to seek is prosecution of Hinrich for perjury for the

statements she made under oath. The district court found that a plaintiff in a civil suit

cannot compel a criminal prosecution.

We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo,

accept all the facts in the complaint as true, and grant all reasonable inferences in

favor of the non-moving party. Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 886 (8th Cir.

2008). We affirm the dismissal of the cause of action for the reasons stated by the

district court in its well-reasoned and thorough orders. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-2236 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2010 Entry ID: 3680555