Hammett v. Morrill

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Hammett v. Morrill

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

LAURA HAMMETT PLAINTIFF

v. NO: 4:21-CV-00633-LPR

JOHN MORRILL, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court Southern District of California; JUDE DOE, in his official capacity as Deputy Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court Southern District of California; DOES 2-99 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff Laura Hammett filed a complaint against the Clerk of the Court for the Southern District of California and his deputy in their official capacities.1 On October 29, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion to dismiss.2 Their primary argument was that, because Ms. Hammett sued them in their official capacities only, they were entitled to the full sovereign immunity of the federal government.3 In the months since the Defendants’ filing, Ms. Hammett has not responded. Defendants are correct that a suit against a clerk and deputy clerk in their official capacities is a suit against the government, and they are correct that sovereign immunity bars such a suit in the circumstances of this case.4 Although pro se complaints are to be given a liberal construction,5

1 Plaintiff has the responsibility to identify all Defendants, including any “John/Jane Doe” Defendants. But Plaintiff never identified nor served Does 2-99. Accordingly, the Doe Defendants are dismissed.

2 Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 5.

3 Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 6 at 4-5.

4 See Buford v. Runyon,

160 F.3d 1199, 1203

(8th Cir. 1998).

5 See Stone v. Harry,

364 F.3d 912, 914

(8th Cir. 2004). Ms. Hammett made very clear in the caption of her complaint and on page 18 that she intended only to bring official capacity claims. Moreover, had she intended to bring individual capacity claims, she has had many months (since Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss) to say so or to amend her complaint. She did not do either. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion and dismisses Ms. Hammett’s claims without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of April 2022.

ee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown