Ebmeier v. Stump, No. 95-1217
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD; RICHARD S. ARNOLD |
| Citation | 70 F.3d 1012 |
| Parties | Dandy EBMEIER, Appellant, v. Jill STUMP, Dennis S. O'Brien, and Ann Stillman, Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1217 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1995 |
Page 1012
v.
Jill STUMP, Dennis S. O'Brien, and Ann Stillman, Appellees.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 4, 1995.
Dale D. Dahlin, Lincoln, Nebraska, for appellant.
Royce N. Harper, Asst. Atty. Gen. (James L. Hatheway, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), Lincoln, Nebraska, for appellee.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, WHITE, * Associate Justice, and LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.
In this Sec. 1983 case, Dandy Ebmeier claims Jill Stump, Dennis O'Brien, and Ann Stillman, all former employees of the Nebraska Department of Social Services ("NDSS"), violated his federal due-process rights by disregarding a court-approved plan aimed at reuniting Mr. Ebmeier with his two children. The District Court 1 granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that, given the circumstances, Ms. Stump, Ms. Stillman, and Mr. O'Brien acted in an objectively reasonable manner. 2 We affirm.
I.
In April, 1988, a state court in Buffalo County, Nebraska, found that Mr. Ebmeier had neglected and abused his two children. The court therefore placed the children with NDSS. Two months later, the court approved NDSS's "therapeutic plan." The plan's long-term goal was reuniting Mr. Ebmeier and the children. The court noted, however, that "the extent of the problems disclosed have not and will not, in the near future, allow reunification of the children into the family home although all reasonable efforts to accomplish that goal have been taken or are being planned for the family."
The court's skepticism was, in hindsight, well-founded. Although the reunification
Page 1013
plan remained in effect, the defendants decided to begin the process of terminating Mr. Ebmeier's parental rights. Two years after the court approved the plan, a petition for termination was filed, and the court terminated Mr. Ebmeier's parental rights in November, 1990. 3Mr. Ebmeier claims the defendants "disregarded" both the Buffalo County Court's order approving the reunification plan and NDSS policy, 4 thereby violating his "constitutionally protected fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his children." As the District Court put it, Mr. Ebmeier asserts a "clearly established right requiring the defendants to adhere strictly to the court order that directed them to devise a reunification plan."
II.
The District Court did not decide whether Mr. Ebmeier had a federal right requiring the defendants to adhere unswervingly to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmore v. City of Pac., Case No. 4:09CV1073SNLJ.
...Booker v. City of St. Louis, 309 F.3d 464, 467 (8th Cir.2002); Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir.2000)citing Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995); Kornblum v. St. Louis County, Mo., 48 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir.1995). 3. Plaintiff, again, appears to incorporate a generalized......
-
Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, Case No. 3:13CV00127 KGB.
...law, state-agency regulations, and state-court orders do not, by themselves, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995). “Section 1983 guards and vindicates federal rights alone.” Id. Even if the Blytheville District violated the 2013 Act, ......
-
Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. # 5, No. 14–3746.
...... do not by themselves state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 guards and vindicates federal rights alone.” Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995) ; see also Williams v. Hopkins, 130 F.3d 333, 337 (8th Cir.1997) (“Ordinarily, an alleged violation of state law does ......
-
Lilley v. State of Mo., No. 4:95-CV-0187 CAS.
...under Section 1983, it must fail. Violations of state laws do not by themselves state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995). The allegation that a state constitution itself operates to violate a plaintiff's federal civil rights may, in the prope......
-
Palmore v. City of Pac., Case No. 4:09CV1073SNLJ.
...Booker v. City of St. Louis, 309 F.3d 464, 467 (8th Cir.2002); Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir.2000)citing Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995); Kornblum v. St. Louis County, Mo., 48 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir.1995). 3. Plaintiff, again, appears to incorporate a generalized......
-
Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, Case No. 3:13CV00127 KGB.
...law, state-agency regulations, and state-court orders do not, by themselves, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995). “Section 1983 guards and vindicates federal rights alone.” Id. Even if the Blytheville District violated the 2013 Act, ......
-
Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. # 5, No. 14–3746.
...... do not by themselves state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 guards and vindicates federal rights alone.” Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995) ; see also Williams v. Hopkins, 130 F.3d 333, 337 (8th Cir.1997) (“Ordinarily, an alleged violation of state law does ......
-
Lilley v. State of Mo., No. 4:95-CV-0187 CAS.
...under Section 1983, it must fail. Violations of state laws do not by themselves state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995). The allegation that a state constitution itself operates to violate a plaintiff's federal civil rights may, in the prope......