Robert Prokop v. NE Accountability & Disclosure, et al, No. 11-1795 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. Dismissal of Section 1983 action affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1795 ___________ Robert J. Prokop, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Nebraska Accountability and * Disclosure Commission; Frank Daley, * Executive Director, in his official * capacity and individually; Mark * Hinman, Deputy Executive Director * and Chief Auditor, in his official * capacity and individually; William L. * Howland, Commission General * Counsel, in his official capacity and * individually; Neal Danberg, * Commission General Counsel, in his * official capacity and individually; * James Stesjkal, Staff Auditor, in his * official capacity and individually; * David Hunter, Staff Auditor, in his * official capacity and individually; * Kimberly Quandt, 2006 Commission * Chairman, in her official capacity * and individually; John S. McCollister, * Commissioner, in his official * capacity and individually; Andre Barry, * Commissioner, in his official capacity * and individually; Marilee Frederickson, * Commissioner, in her official * capacity and individually; Judy * Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. [UNPUBLISHED] Schweikart, Commissioner, in her official capacity and individually; Paul Hosford, Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; Gary Rosacker, Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; Richard Nelson, Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; John Bergmeyer, former Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; John Gale, Secretary of State and Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; James McClurg, District V University of Nebraska Regent, in his official capacity and individually; Lori McClurg, former Director of Administrative Services, in her official capacity and individually, Appellees. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ___________ Submitted: November 2, 2011 Filed: November 16, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Prokop brought this 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action raising multiple claims in connection with a state election and a later state proceeding against him to collect late -2- fees. The District Court1 dismissed the complaint, and Prokop appeals. After careful de novo review, see Detroit Gen. Ret. Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 621 F.3d 800, 804 05 (8th Cir. 2010), we conclude that dismissal was proper because (1) some of the claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine and the District Court properly refrained from interfering in pending state-court garnishment proceedings, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 54 (1971); (2) the remaining allegations fail to state a claim or are time-barred; and (3) Prokop s arguments for judicial recusal were not presented below, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to consider claims first raised on appeal), and in any event, appear meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 2 Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). -3-
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.
