Roland Riemers v. State of ND, No. 05-2425 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Civil Rights. District court did not err in dismissing action as plaintiffs failed to show Congress has abrogated North Dakota's Eleventh Amendment immunity or that North Dakota had waived its immunity.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2425 ___________ Roland Riemers; Mitch Sanderson, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. State of North Dakota, Appellee. * * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: June 14, 2006 Filed: June 16, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Roland Riemers and Mitch Sanderson (plaintiffs) appeal the district court s1 dismissal of their pro se complaint against the State of North Dakota as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that North Dakota unlawfully discriminates against noncustodial parents in all areas of domestic relations. Because plaintiffs have failed to show that Congress has abrogated North Dakota s Eleventh Amendment immunity 1 The Honorable Ralph Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. or that North Dakota has waived immunity with regard to plaintiffs allegations, we agree with the district court that the Eleventh Amendment bars this suit. We also reject plaintiffs contention that the Ex Parte Young2 exception saves their claims for injunctive relief. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993) (Ex Parte Young doctrine creates exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to injunctive relief against state officials; doctrine has no application in suits against States and their agencies, which are barred regardless of relief sought). Finally, we reject plaintiffs contentions that this court should provide them with leave to amend their complaint, see Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass n, 161 F.3d 1178, 1182 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying request on appeal to amend complaint to name defendant in his personal capacity, where plaintiff had had ample time to seek amendment, but failed to do so), and that dismissal should have been without prejudice, see Tex. Cmty. Bank v. Mo. Dep t of Soc. Serv., 232 F.3d 942, 943 (8th Cir. 2000) (if State s Eleventh Amendment argument is meritorious, it is entitled to preclude possibility of re-filing by having claim dismissed with prejudice). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
