Source: http://ne.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180620_0002527.DNE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:32:43+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Tyler v. "Kimes"
"KIMES", County Judge of Nebraska Douglas County; Defendant.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 25, 2018. (Filing No. 1.) He has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 5.) The court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff sues Judge Kimes, a county judge in Douglas County, Nebraska, in her individual and official capacities. Plaintiff alleges Judge Kimes used her position as a county court judge to question an individual named Trilla Cummins when Cummins appeared before Judge Kimes in order to “ascertain private constitutionally protected communications between Plaintiff and Cummins [and] to get subpoena for Cummins issued to appear as witness against Plaintiff in CI166725 . . . on docket of Douglas County Nebraska [D]istrict Court wherein state seeks to prosecute Plaintiff for illegal practice of law.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp.1-2.) Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Kimes has a policy or practice of interrogating individuals who come before her on a “NrS 29-2412 motion . . . to illegally ascertain if Plaintiff knows such person.” (Id. at CM/ECF p.2.) Plaintiff claims Judge Kimes' actions violate his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the doctrine of separation of powers “as she [is] not to exercise any prosecutorial investigatory acts.” (Id. at CM/ECF pp.2-3.) Plaintiff seeks $10, 000, 000.00 in damages as relief.
A search of Nebraska state court records for No. CI166725 in the District Court of Douglas County failed to retrieve any cases to which Plaintiff was a party. However, the court's search did uncover a case in the District Court of Douglas County with a similar case number, CI15-6725, in which Plaintiff is named as the defendant in an action by the State to bar him from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Based on the similarity in case numbers and to the description given by Plaintiff, the court believes No. CI15-6725 is the case to which Plaintiff intended to refer. This case was dismissed by the state district court on March 30, 2018, because the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to enter an injunction to enjoin Plaintiff from the unauthorized practice of law as the Nebraska Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to issue injunctions for the unauthorized practice of law. In reaching its conclusion, the state district court noted that Plaintiff is subject to an existing injunction issued by the Nebraska Supreme Court enjoining him from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. See State of Neb. ex rel. Comm'n on Unauthorized Practice of Law v. Tyler, 811 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 2012).
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff sues Judge Kimes in her official and individual capacity. Thus, the court must consider whether Plaintiff's claims against Judge Kimes are barred by sovereign immunity and judicial immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages by private parties against a state. See, e.g., Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 618-19 (8th Cir. 1995); Dover Elevator Co. v. Arkansas State Univ., 64 F.3d 442, 446-47 (8th Cir. 1995). Any award of retroactive monetary relief payable by the state, including for back pay or damages, is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment absent a waiver of immunity by the state or an override of immunity by Congress. See, e.g., Dover Elevator Co., 64 F.3d at 444; Nevels v. Hanlon, 656 F.2d 372, 377-78 (8th Cir. 1981). A state's sovereign immunity extends to public officials sued in their official capacities as “[a] suit against a public employee in his or her official capacity is merely a suit against the public employer.” Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999).

References: v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.