Arbary Jackson v. Missouri Board of Probation
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Moore v. Saint Paul Police Department (D. Minn. 2025)
- Ware v. Department of Corrections Missouri (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2025)
- Bondarenko v. City of Bridgeton (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2024)
- Shattuck-Knaebel v. Missouri Department of Corrections (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2024)
- Cook v. Yetman (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2024)
- Shattuck-Knaebel v. Missouri Department of Corrections (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2024)
- Saling v. Barnes (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2023)
- Dunham v. Circuit Court of Franklin County, Missouri Associate Division (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Moore v. Saint Louis City Jail Justice Center (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Anderson v. Pemiscot County Jail (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Baalim v. State of Missouri (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Allen v. Missouri Department of Corrections Board of Probation and Parole (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Baalim v. St. Louis City Justice Center (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Wesley v. Essmyer (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Rudolph v. Jefferson County Jail/Sheriff Dept (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Kilbreth v. Hefner (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Corneilus v. Missouri Department of Correction Prison Official (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Huff v. Warren County Jail (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Babb v. Rodger Unknown (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2022)
- Page v. Herceles (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2021)
- Miller-Bey v. Williams (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2021)
- Woodson v. Case (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2021)
- Cooper v. Ste. Genevieve County Jail (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2021)
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
Arbary Jackson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Upon de novo review, see Union Elec. Co. v. Mo. Dept. of Conservation, 366 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir. 2004), we agree with the district court that Jackson’s complaint was barred by sovereign immunity, see Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). Jackson’s pro se status does not excuse his failure to name the proper parties, see Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro se liti *334 gants are not excused from complying with substantive and procedural law), and we decline his request to remand this matter with instructions to allow amendment of his complaint, see Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass’n, Inc., 161 F.3d 1178, 1182 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying request on appeal to amend complaint to name defendant in his personal capacity where plaintiff had ample time to seek amendment but failed to do so). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jackson’s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.