Marvel Jones v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3190
___________________________
Marvel Jones
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
Defendant - Appellant
Unknown and unnamed persons, Director of Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services; Unknown and unnamed persons, Director I of Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services; Unknown and unnamed persons, Director II of Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services; Unknown and unnamed persons, Associate
Director of Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
Defendants
Tecumseh State Correctional Institution
Defendant - Appellant
Unknown and unnamed persons, Warden of Tecumseh State Correctional
Institution; Unknown and unnamed persons, Deputy Warden of Tecumseh State
Correctional Institution; Unknown and unnamed persons, Associate Warden of
Tecumseh State Correctional Institution; Unknown and unnamed persons,
Librarian of Tecumseh State Correctional Institution; Unknown and unnamed
persons, Warden of Nebraska State Penitentiary
Defendants

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
Nebraska State Penitentiary
Defendant - Appellant
Unknown and unnamed persons, Associate Warden of Nebraska State Penitentiary;
Unknown and unnamed persons, Deputy Warden of Nebraska State Penitentiary;
Librarian of Nebraska State Penitentiary
Defendants
Omaha Correctional Center
Defendant - Appellant
Unknown and unnamed persons, Warden of Omaha Correctional Center; Unknown
and unnamed persons, Associate Warden of Omaha Correctional Center; Unknown
and unnamed persons, Deputy Warden of Omaha Correctional Center; Unknown
and unnamed persons, Librarian of Omaha Correctional Center
Defendants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: December 15, 2023
Filed: June 5, 2024
____________
Before ERICKSON, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
Marvel Jones, acting pro se, filed a civil rights complaint against the Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services (“NDCS”), Nebraska State Penitentiary,
Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, the Omaha Correctional Center

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
(collectively, “the correctional facilities”), and several unnamed individuals. Jones
claimed that the policies of the institutions and the actions of the individuals
obstructed his right to legal assistance and unlawfully limited his ability to access
the courts while he was incarcerated. The district court granted the correctional
facilities’ motion to dismiss, but conditioned NDCS’s dismissal on its compliance
with a disclosure directive. NDCS appeals, arguing the district court’s order violates
sovereign immunity. We reverse in part.
Jones is civilly committed at Norfolk Regional Center in Nebraska. He
commenced this action claiming NDCS’s law library policies, which prohibit prison
librarians and legal aides from assisting inmates in conducting legal research, giving
advice on the law, providing advice on filing, preparing written documents, or
retaining the inmate’s legal documents, implicate his federal rights by preventing
him from successfully challenging his conviction and sentence. The complaint
named various defendants, including NDCS, the correctional facilities where he was
held, and unnamed individuals in the facilities who upheld or enforced the library
policies. Before he filed his complaint, Jones wrote to the NDCS human resources
department seeking the names and addresses of the individuals listed as unnamed
defendants. NDCS did not respond.
All named defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting that Jones’s claims were barred by
sovereign immunity and by the applicable statutes of limitations. Even though he
did not represent the unnamed individual defendants, the Attorney General sought
the dismissal of the unnamed individual defendants for the same reasons and because
Jones had failed to allege any direct or personal involvement by the unnamed
individuals.
The district court granted the named defendants’ motion, finding that Jones’s
claims against the correctional facilities and the individual defendants in their
official capacities were barred both by sovereign immunity and the applicable
statutes of limitations. The district court did not dismiss the claims against the

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
unnamed individual defendants in their individual capacities because Jones was
acting pro se, was not a prisoner, and was not proceeding in forma pauperis, which
deprived the court of the power to screen under 42 U.S.C. § 1915. Instead of
dismissing NDCS from the action, the district court conditionally dismissed the case
against NDCS and required it provide Jones with the requested names and addresses
of the unnamed defendants. NDCS unsuccessfully moved under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) to amend the district court’s order removing the obligation to
disclose. NDCS appeals.
While Jones asserts this Court lacks jurisdiction over NDCS’s appeal, we have
collateral order jurisdiction because the district court’s order conclusively
determined an issue separate from the merits and the issue raised on appeal by NDCS
is not subject to effective review on an appeal from a final judgment. See Mohawk
Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (specifying certain collateral
rulings that are considered final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291). Typically, a
party only has a right to appeal an adverse judgment, Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301,
304 (1988), but placing a condition on sovereign immunity and requiring NDCS to
wait until the case has been litigated imperils NDCS’s interest in its immunity to a
degree sufficient to fall into the small category of collateral rulings that may be
considered final for purposes of § 1291. See Fant v. City of Ferguson, 913 F.3d 757,
759 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639, 647-48 (8th Cir.
2009) (noting that collateral order jurisdiction encompasses closely related legal
issues that are inextricably intertwined with the district court’s determination on
immunity).
Turning to the specific claims raised by NDCS, the district court found Jones’s
claims against the correctional facilities and the unnamed defendants in their official
capacities were barred by sovereign immunity. Rather than sua sponte dismissing
the individual capacity claims alleged against the unnamed defendants, the district
court, relying on Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985), ordered NDCS
to disclose the identity and address of the unnamed defendants consistent with
Jones’s pre-suit request. We recognize that Jones and the district court face

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
difficulties in managing this case which involves a plaintiff who, while civilly
committed, is not imprisoned, is pro se, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. But
sovereign immunity limits a judge’s authority to act in a way that requires NDCS to
remain in the case. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
98 (1984) (“[T]he fundamental principle of sovereign immunity limits the grant of
judicial authority in Art. III.”). Once the district court concluded that NDCS was
entitled to sovereign immunity, it lacked authority to hold NDCS in as a litigant,
even on a relatively minor disclosure condition.
Recognizing the problem, Jones tries to recast the order as a discovery
directive on appeal. But Jones took no action to acquire the information after he
commenced his suit. Without a motion or discovery request, the court had nothing
before it upon which it could act. See McGehee v. Neb. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 968
F.3d 899, 900 (8th Cir. 2020), vacated as moot, 987 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2021). While
we are sympathetic to the district court’s obvious intention to streamline the process
of discovery and frame the case for quicker resolution, conditioning dismissal on
disclosure violates NDCS’s sovereign immunity.
We reverse and vacate the portion of the district court’s order that conditioned
NDCS’s dismissal on its disclosure of the identities and addresses of the unnamed
defendant employees and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
MELLOY, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur in the disposition of this case because Jones took no action to file a
motion or discovery request prior to the district court dismissing the Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services. I write separately, however, to note that we
have held that sovereign immunity does not shield a government entity from
discovery or a subpoena duces tecum. See, In re Mo. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 105 F.3d
434, 436 (8th Cir. 1997). As the majority opinion notes, Jones did request the
Nebraska Department of Corrections to provide the names and addresses of the

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
unknown persons prior to filing suit. The department did not respond to that
informal request. Had Jones followed up with a formal discovery request and/or a
subpoena duces tecum to the department, it very well may have been required to
respond and would not have been shielded by Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity.
______________________________

-- 6 of 6 --