Calzone v. Hawley, No. 16-3650 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against three state officials to challenge provisions of Missouri law that authorize roving stops of certain vehicles for inspection without suspicion. The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff had standing to sue the superintendent, and his claims against her for injunctive and declaratory relief were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment; claims against the governor and the attorney general were properly dismissed, because there was no case or controversy between plaintiff and those officials; Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.230.1, .2, and .7 can be applied constitutionally to participants in the commercial trucking industry under New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987), and the provisions were not unconstitutional on their face; but it was error for the district court to dismiss plaintiff's as-applied claims against the superintendent for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the meaning of "person" under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Benton, Circuit Judge and Gerrard, District Judge] Civil Case - civil rights. In challenge to Mo. Rev. Stat. sec. 304.230.1, .2 and .7, authorizing roving stops of commercial vehicles for inspection without probable cause, Calzone lacks standing to sue the governor or attorney general, but has standing to sue the superintendent of the Missouri state highway patrol under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 for injunctive and declaratory relief. The facial challenge fails because the statute may be applied constitutionally to participants in the commercial trucking industry under New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987). The district court's dismissal of the as-applied challenge against the superintendent for money damages is affirmed, because the superintendent in her official capacity is not a person under section 1983. The district court erred in dismissing the as-applied claims against the superintendent for declaratory and injunctive relief and the case is remanded for further proceedings to address whether Calzone is a covered farm vehicle under federal law, whether Missouri's law incorporates the federal regulations, and whether exemptions under federal and state law apply.
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.