From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buckley v. Dowdle

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mar 24, 2009
No. 08-1005 (8th Cir. Mar. 24, 2009)

Summary

holding that a father may not bring a civil claim pro se on behalf of his minor daughter

Summary of this case from Rucker v. Neb. Separate Juvenile Ct.

Opinion

No. 08-1005.

Submitted: March 18, 2009.

Filed: March 24, 2009.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.


[UNPUBLISHED]


John Buckley filed a pro se civil complaint on behalf of himself and his minor child, alleging violations of the United States Constitution and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). The district court dismissed the complaint, and Buckley appeals.

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

After careful de novo review, we affirm. Buckley cannot bring a claim on behalf of his minor daughter, see Myers v. Loudoun County Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005), and his own claims are meritless. He did not explain how defendants violated CAPTA, see Hutchinson ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 901-02 (7th Cir. 1997); two defendants are not state actors for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for violation of Buckley's constitutional rights, see Crumpley-Patterson v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 388 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir. 2004); the state judge enjoys judicial immunity, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam); and Buckley did not explain how the remaining state actor violated his constitutional rights, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints must allege sufficient facts).

Although the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we prefer to reach the merits in light of Buckley's assertion of constitutional claims. See Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may affirm on any basis supported by record).

Accordingly, we affirm, but we modify the dismissal of all claims on behalf of Buckley's minor daughter to be without prejudice. We also deny the pending motion to submit exhibits.


Summaries of

Buckley v. Dowdle

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mar 24, 2009
No. 08-1005 (8th Cir. Mar. 24, 2009)

holding that a father may not bring a civil claim pro se on behalf of his minor daughter

Summary of this case from Rucker v. Neb. Separate Juvenile Ct.

finding that a parent, acting pro se, "cannot bring a claim on behalf of his minor daughter"

Summary of this case from Olson v. Dietz

affirming dismissal of a pro se complaint filed on behalf of plaintiff's minor daughter

Summary of this case from Horst v. Abused Adult Res. Ctr.

affirming dismissal of a pro se complaint filed on behalf of the plaintiff's minor daughter

Summary of this case from Colvin v. Plymouth Police Dep't

affirming dismissal of pro se complaint filed on behalf of plaintiff's minor daughter

Summary of this case from Crozier v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist.

affirming dismissal of pro se complaint filed on behalf of plaintiff's minor daughter

Summary of this case from Crozier v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist.

affirming dismissal of pro se complaint filed on behalf of plaintiff's minor daughter

Summary of this case from Crozier v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist.

affirming dismissal of pro se complaint filed on behalf of plaintiff's minor daughter

Summary of this case from Swift v. Barrett
Case details for

Buckley v. Dowdle

Case Details

Full title:John Buckley, Appellant, v. Regina Dowdle, Family Service Worker, Arkansas…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Mar 24, 2009

Citations

No. 08-1005 (8th Cir. Mar. 24, 2009)

Citing Cases

Swift v. Barrett

However, he may not maintain a pro se action on behalf of [his minor child].See alsoAkins v. Schreiner, No.…

Stanley v. Berryhill

The Court recognizes Ellen Elizabeth Packenham Stanley is not an attorney and, as such, could not bring this…