Moirsche Terrell Sibley v. Christa Rutherford, in her individual

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2988
___________________________
Moirsche Terrell Sibley
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Christa Rutherford, in her individual and official capacity; Nick Grundhouser,
Badge #4615, in his individual and official capacity; Minnesota Court of Appeals;
Minnesota Judicial Branch; Minnesota State Patrol, District 2000; John Does 1-10
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: February 12, 2026
Filed: February 18, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM.
Moirsche Sibley appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his civil
rights action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Upon
careful de novo review, we affirm. See Rush v. State Ark. DWS, 876 F.3d 1123,
1125 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review).
We agree with the district court that Sibley could not pursue official-capacity
claims for damages against the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Judicial
Branch, Minnesota State Patrol--District 2000, Christa Rutherford, and Nick
Grundhauser; moreover, the operative complaint did not allege an ongoing violation
of federal law or seek prospective injunctive relief. See McDaniel v. Precythe, 897
F.3d 946, 951-52 (8th Cir. 2018); Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir.
1997). Regarding the individual capacity claim against Rutherford, the district court
correctly concluded that she was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity, as her
conduct involved a discretionary task. See Hamilton v. City of Hayti, 948 F.3d 921,
928 (8th Cir. 2020). We further affirm the dismissal of Sibley’s individual capacity
claims against Rutherford and Grundhauser on the alternative ground that Sibley did
not allege facts sufficient to show he suffered an actual injury as a result of his
inability to file an interlocutory appeal. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51
(1996); see also Buckley v. Ray, 848 F.3d 855, 865 (8th Cir. 2017); Maness v. Dist.
Ct. of Logan Cnty.-N. Div., 495 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2007). Finally, to the extent
Sibley intended to appeal the dismissal of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, he
neither stated a viable constitutional claim, nor alleged any meeting of the minds to
support a conspiracy claim. See Crutcher-Sanchez v. Cnty. of Dakota, 687 F.3d 979,
987 (8th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --