Alexander v. Hedback, et al., No. 12-2834 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseA bankruptcy court ordered that the Laurel Avenue house be vacated and authorized U.S. Marshals to physically remove plaintiff, the debtor's son, from the home. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his suit, which alleged, inter alia, that his constitutional rights were violated when the house, its contents, and his person were searched and seized. The court found no error in the dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against the federal defendants where he did not allege a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics action in the amended complaint, nor did he seek to amend to add the claim; plaintiff's section 1983 claim failed against the city and the city's officers where plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to show a direct causal link between the city's policy or custom and the alleged violation of his constitutional rights; the district court did not err in dismissing his tort claims against the trustees under the doctrine established in Barton v. Barbour, which established that an equity receiver could not be sued without leave of the court that appointed him; and because the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims was proper, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Case - civil rights. In action raising constitutional claims against bankruptcy trustee, U.S. Marshal and deputy marshals arising from bankruptcy order to vacate premises, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to construe the complaint as alleging a Bivens action. The section 1983 claims against the state defendants sued in their official capacities failed because there were insufficient facts to show a direct causal link between the City's policy or custom and the alleged violation of constitutional rights. The dismissal of the tort claims against the trustees failed for failure to obtain leave of the bankruptcy court under Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881), which remains good law after the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. District court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other state law claims.
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.