Opinion ID: 1269966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: ashby's federal court claims and federal district court's disposition

Text: In the federal case, Ashby filed a § 1983 lawsuit against Dyer, Kilmer, the Blacks, Whitmire, Washburn, Erickson & Sederstrom, and other defendants. He claimed that all the defendants, acting under the color of state law, conspired to deprive him of due process by removing M.A. to another state for adoption. He also made state law claims of civil conspiracy, negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against all the defendants and a false imprisonment claim against the Blacks. In April 2006, the federal court dismissed, with prejudice, the § 1983 claim against Dyer in her official capacity because Ashby was only requesting monetary damages. Regarding the claim against Dyer in her individual capacity, the court concluded that Ashby's allegation failed to state a § 1983 claim based on a civil conspiracy. The court concluded that a plaintiff's allegations that a state official acted negligently are insufficient to state a constitutional claim. [9] And, assuming that Dyer knew of Ashby's paternity claim, Ashby failed to allege that she shared this information. So there was not a `meeting of the minds' between Dyer and the other defendants to violate [Ashby's] constitutional rights. [10] Because Dyer's allegations failed to show a state action, the federal court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the claims. It dismissed with prejudice the § 1983 claims against Dyer, in her official capacity, and against the remaining defendants. It apparently dismissed without prejudice the § 1983 claim against Dyer, in her individual capacity, and Ashby's remaining state law claims.