Jeffrey Reuter v. John Borbonus, No. 17-2108 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Murphy and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Dismissal of plaintiff's Section 1983 complaint affirmed without comment; the defendant judge and the State of Missouri were immune from suit and the complaint did not identify an unconstitutional St. Louis County custom or policy. [ January 24, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2108 ___________________________ Jeffrey Reuter lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. John N. Borbonus; St. Louis County, Missouri; State of Missouri lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: January 22, 2018 Filed: January 25, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Reuter appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he named as defendants a state court judge, St. Louis County, Missouri, and the State of Missouri. Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper, as Judge Borbonus and the State were immune from suit, and the complaint did not identify an unconstitutional County custom or policy. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (discussing absolute judicial immunity); Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits for any kind of relief against states); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires constitutional violation committed pursuant to official government custom or policy). We find the district court also properly denied Reuter’s motion to amend the complaint, and did not abuse its discretion in denying his motions for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. See Geier v. Mo. Ethics Comm’n, 715 F.3d 674, 678 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court may deny leave to amend complaint if amendment would be futile); United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for denial of Rule 59(e) motions). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
