LOIS CLEON SHELTON AUBUCHON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State of Missouri is not a proper party to an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and any individual named would be protected by judicial immunity.
Plaintiff sued the State of Missouri under § 1983, alleging a prior state court judgment violated her constitutional rights. The state court had deter…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action 'Under Color Of State Law' cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lois Aubuchon appeals pro se the dismissal of her § 1983 action against the State of Missouri. Aubuchon sought relief and damages from a 1975 state court judgment which she alleges violated her constitutional rights. The state court proceeding involved the probate of her father’s estate. During that proceeding a third party successfully challenged the validity of the marriage of Aubuchon’s parents. The Circuit Court of Dent County held that Aubuchon failed to establish the existence of a valid common law marriage between her parents and could not inherit under her father’s will.
We affirm the judgment of the district court 487 F.Supp. 529 dismissing Aubu-chon’s complaint without prejudice to any remedies available to her under state law.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is directed at individuals acting under color of state law, not individual states. The State of Missouri is not a proper party to an action brought under § 1983. Milton v. Nelson, 527 F. 2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1976); Neal v. Georgia, 469 F. 2d 446,448 (5th Cir. 1972); Meyer v. New Jersey, 460 F. 2d 1252, 1253 (3d Cir. 1972); Collins v. Florida, 432 F. 2d 60, 61 n.5 (5th Cir. 1970); Stewart v. Minnick, 409 F. 2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969). It appears that the only individual Aubuchon could have named as a party in this action was the state court judge, who is protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).
Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the action by the district court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989)
-
Seltzer v. Ashcroft, 675 F.2d 184 (8th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman et vir, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978)
- Stewart v. Vesta Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Neal v. State OF Ga., 469 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Milton v. Nelson, 527 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1975)
- Collins v. State, 432 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Mrs. Ronald F. Meyer v. The State OF NEW Jersey, 460 F.2d 1252 (3d Cir. 1972)