Court Opinion

ID: 9944034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 16:02:06.814602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:07.444300
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3012
                         ___________________________

                                     Jane Doe

                                      Plaintiff - Appellant

                                         v.

  Anoka County; James Stuart, the Anoka County Sheriff in his official capacity;
                          Detective Larry Johnson

                                    Defendants - Appellees
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: November 8, 2023
                             Filed: February 26, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Jane Doe appeals the district court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings
to defendants, Anoka County, Minnesota, Sheriff James Stuart, and former Detective
Larry Johnson, which held she lacked standing in her lawsuit regarding Anoka
County’s alleged failure to test hundreds of rape kits, including her own. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse and remand.
       “We review de novo a grant of ‘judgment on the pleadings.’” Henson v.
Union Pac. R.R. Co., 3 F.4th 1075, 1080 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). At this
stage, we take the facts alleged by Doe as true and grant all reasonable inferences in
her favor. Id.

       While the district court largely characterized Doe’s Equal Protection claim as
a failure to prosecute her assault, and therefore found she lacked standing, see Linda
R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973), we understand her claim to be based
on the Defendants’ alleged failure to timely investigate the crime of sexual assault
due to an alleged discriminatory animus against women and girls.

       After the parties filed their briefs, we decided Pratt v. Helms, 73 F.4th 592
(8th Cir. 2023). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Defendants
submitted a letter explaining that Pratt supported affirmance of the district court’s
order. See City of Clarkson Valley v. Mineta, 495 F.3d 567, 569 (8th Cir. 2007)
(“[S]tanding is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be resolved before reaching the
merits of a suit.”). Doe filed a Rule 28(j) letter explaining that Pratt was inapposite.
The case was subsequently submitted on the briefs.

       The parties dispute whether Pratt controls the outcome of this case.
Accordingly, we find that it would be appropriate to reverse the grant of judgment
on the pleadings and remand to the district court to consider Doe’s complaint in light
of Pratt.

      We therefore reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
                        ______________________________

                                          -2-