Johnthan Harrigan v. Osage Beach Police Department; Blair Mullett

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3692
___________________________
Johnthan Harrigan
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Osage Beach Police Department; Blair Mullett
Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: April 29, 2024
Filed: May 2, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
New Jersey resident Johnthan Harrigan appeals the district court’s1 denial of
leave to amend his complaint and dismissal of his action raising a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
1 The Honorable Willie J. Epps, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
claim and a common law claim against the Osage Beach Police Department and one
of its officers. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
This court concludes that the district court properly granted judgment on the
pleadings. See Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. City of Richmond Heights, 92 F.4th 763, 766
(8th Cir. 2024) (de novo review). The police department is a municipal sub-entity
not amenable to suit. See Ketchum v. City of W. Memphis, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir.
1992) (city police department is not suable juridical entity). Harrigan did not
expressly state he sued the officer in her individual capacity, see Johnson v.
Outboard Marine, Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999) (plaintiff must expressly
state public official is sued in individual capacity); and he failed to state a claim
against the officer in her official capacity, see Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991)
(suit against governmental actor in official capacity treated as suit against
governmental entity itself); Kiefer v. Isanti Cnty., 71 F.4th 1149, 1152-53 (8th Cir.)
(necessary elements to establish municipal liability under § 1983), cert. denied 144
S. Ct. 353 (2023). Further, Harrigan’s common law claims were barred by sovereign
immunity. See Poke v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 S.W.3d 18, 21 (Mo. 2022) (under
Missouri law, sovereign immunity applies to all suits against public entities absent
express statutory exception or recognized common law exception). Finally, this
court concludes that denial of leave to amend was proper. See Raynor v. Nat’l Rural
Utils. Coop. Fin., Corp., 690 F.3d 951, 957 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion
review).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --