McKlintic v. 36th Judicial

23 Citing cases

  1. Wilson v. Executive Office of Health Human Services

    606 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Mass. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    Moreover, since the Hibbs decision in 2003, virtually all the circuits that have addressed the abrogation issue have continued to hold that the states are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from damages claims arising under the FMLA's self-care leave provision. See Nelson v. Univ. Texas at Dallas, 535 F.3d 318, 321 (5th Cir. 2008); McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875, 877 (8th Cir. 2007); Toeller v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections, 461 F.3d 871, 879 (7th Cir. 2006); Touvell v. Ohio Dep't of Mental Retardation, 422 F.3d 392, 400 (6th Cir. 2005); Brockman v. Wyoming Dep't of Family Servs., 342 F.3d 1159, 1165 (10th Cir. 2003); Batchelor v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 242 Fed. Appx. 652, 653 (11th Cir. 2007). Given the persuasive nature of those decisions, this court doubts that the First Circuit will go in a different direction.

  2. Harmon v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc.

    No. 23-2691 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025)

    Id. at 8-9 (citing McKlintic v. 36th Jud. Cir. Ct., 464 F.Supp.2d 871, 875 (E.D. Mo. 2006), aff'd by McKlintic v. 36th Jud. Cir. Ct., 508 F.3d 875, 877 (8 th Cir. 2007)). Though Harmon argued that the state waived this immunity under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600.1(2), that statute waived sovereign immunity, not Eleventh Amendment immunity.

  3. Keselyak v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo.

    200 F. Supp. 3d 849 (W.D. Mo. 2016)   Cited 11 times
    Finding plaintiff's claims against the University were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear them

    To the extent Plaintiff argues the University consented to be sued in federal court under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 172.020 —which states the University has the power to generally "sue and be sued"—Plaintiff is mistaken. SeeFlorida Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass'n, 450 U.S. 147, 149, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981) ; McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875, 877 (8th Cir.2007) ; see alsoThompson v. Regents of Univ. of California, 206 Fed.Appx. 714, 715 (9th Cir.2006). To the extent Plaintiff argues the University waived its immunity by entering a notice of appearance and then moving to dismiss the case, Plaintiff is also mistaken. SeeSkelton v. Henry, 390 F.3d 614, 618 (8th Cir.2004) ; Fromm v. Comm'n of Veterans Affairs, 220 F.3d 887, 890 (8th Cir.2000).

  4. Theisen v. Stoddard Cnty.

    Case No. 1:13CV32 CDP (E.D. Mo. Aug. 26, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600. A state may waive its immunity by voluntarily invoking federal jurisdiction or by making a "clear declaration that it intends to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the federal courts." McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875, 877 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted); see also Quinnett v. Iowa, 644 F.3d 630, 632 (8th Cir. 2011). Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600.1(2), the provision at issue here, provides an express waiver of sovereign immunity from liability for compensatory damages for negligent acts or omissions where a plaintiff is injured because of the dangerous condition of a public property.

  5. Hainen v. Barragan-Scott

    Case No. 09-4173-CV-C-NKL (W.D. Mo. Jan. 20, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    However, the Eighth Circuit has subsequently held that self-care provisions of the FMLA do not abrogate the states' immunity. See Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Center, 481 F.3d 1106, 1107 (8th Cir. 2007); McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875, 877 (8th Cir. 2007). Missouri has not consented to be sued in federal court for alleged violations of the FMLA's self-care provisions.

  6. MORR v. STATE OF MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH

    Case No. 4:08CV359 RWS (E.D. Mo. Apr. 28, 2009)   Cited 9 times
    Finding Title V claim for damages barred by the Eleventh Amendment

    Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Immunity from suit on Morr's Family and Medical Leave Act self-care claim, Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Center, 481 F.3d 1106, 11107 (8th Cir. 2007), so the motion for summary judgment on Morr's FMLA claim will be granted. See McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875, 877 (8th Cir. 2007). Morr seeks relief under the provisions of FMLA granting an employee a right to leave on account of the employee's own illness, which are known as the self-care provisions of the statute.

  7. Quinnett v. Iowa

    644 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) (quoting Great N. Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47, 54, 64 S.Ct. 873, 88 L.Ed. 1121 (1944)). In McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), this court held that the State of Missouri did not waive its immunity by offering FMLA leave in its employee handbook. Id. at 877.

  8. Taylor v. Caplan

    4:24-cv-01303-MTS (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2025)

    And, at least on the surface, Plaintiff's claims against some Defendants seem destined to fail based on rudimentary legal principles. See Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 39 (2021) (“States are immune from suit under the terms of the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”); see also, e.g., McKlintic v. 36th Jud. Cir. Ct., 508 F.3d 875, 876 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of action against state court because the action was barred by the Eleventh Amendment). For this additional reason, it is difficult for the Court to believe that Plaintiffs have been acting in good faith when they failed even to begin to undertake the cost and effort to serve numerous Defendants that they sued in this action, the latest iteration of their protracted litigation.

  9. Harris v. Circuit Courts of St. Louis Cnty.

    4:22-CV-267-RLW (E.D. Mo. Jun. 13, 2022)

    . See McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding, in the context of a Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) claim, that the Eleventh Amendment shielded the 36th Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Missouri from suit).

  10. Moore v. Hellmann

    4:22-CV-20 JCH (E.D. Mo. Apr. 6, 2022)

    In this case, plaintiff can be understood to allege that prosecutor Michael Hayes and Judge Craig Hellman allegedly violated his constitutional rights to speedy trial in his criminal case in State v. Moore, No. 18AB-CR03188 (20th Judicial Circuit, Franklin County Court). Missouri Circuit Courts are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, see McKlintic v. 36th Judicial Circuit Court, 508 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2007), and entities such as prosecuting attorney are typically treated the same as other non-suable entitles such as county sheriff's departments. Kaminsky v. State of Missouri, 2007 WL 2956404, at *2, 3 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 2007); see also Stockley v. Joyce, 2018 WL 4300323, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 10, 2018) (applying the reasoning of Kaminsky to determine that the Office of the Circuit Attorney is not a legal entity amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Hancock v. Washtenaw Cnty. Prosecutor's Office, 548 F.Supp. 1255, 1256 (E.D. Mich. 1982) (a prosecutor's office is not a legal entity amenable to suit under § 1983).