Lois Cleon Shelton Aubuchon v. State of Missouri
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Conrod v. Missouri State Highway Patrol (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (Supreme Court of the United States 1989)
- Holt v. Scotland County Juvenile Office (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2021)
- McCaslin v. Bozarth (8th Cir. 1995)
- Terry L. Madewell v. Mike Downs, Anthony P. Grootens, and John Prine (8th Cir. 1995)
- Johnson v. Nebraska, Department of Correctional Services (United States District Court, Nebraska 1992)
- Muza v. Missouri Department of Social Services (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)
- Vest v. Schafer (Alaska 1988)
- Brotzler v. County of Scott (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
- Malady v. Baker (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1987)
- Miner v. Baker (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1986)
- St. Louis County, Mo. v. CITY OF TOWN (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1984)
- Shaw v. City of St. Louis (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)
- Seltzer v. Ashcroft (8th Cir. 1982)
- Prettyman v. STATE OF NEB., COUNTY OF CASS (United States District Court, Nebraska 1982)
- Seltzer v. Ashcroft (8th Cir. 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Lois Aubuchon appeals pro se the dismissal of her § 1983 action against the State of Missouri. Aubuchon sought relief and damages from a 1975 state court judgment which she alleges violated her constitutional rights. The state court proceeding involved the probate of her father’s estate. During that proceeding a third party successfully challenged the validity of the marriage of Aubuchon’s parents. The Circuit Court of Dent County held that Aubuchon failed to establish the existence of a valid common law marriage between her parents and could not inherit under her father’s will.
We affirm the judgment of the district court 487 F.Supp. 529 dismissing Aubu-chon’s complaint without prejudice to any remedies available to her under state law.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is directed at individuals acting under color of state law, not individual states. The State of Missouri is not a proper party to an action brought under § 1983. Milton v. Nelson, 527 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1976); Neal v. Georgia, 469 F.2d 446,448 (5th Cir. 1972); Meyer v. New Jersey, 460 F.2d 1252, 1253 (3d Cir. 1972); Collins v. Florida, 432 F.2d 60, 61 n.5 (5th Cir. 1970); Stewart v. Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969). It appears that the only individual Aubuchon could have named as a party in this action was the state court judge, who is protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).
Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the action by the district court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.