Laura Marie Baldwin v. Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2909
___________________________
Laura Marie Baldwin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.; Justice Clarence Thomas; Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.;
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch; Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh; Justice Sonia Sotomayor;
Justice Elena Kagan; Justice Amy Coney Barrett; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson;
Judge Stephen R. Bough; Judge Joshua C. Devine; Paul Martin Wade; Crystal
Kent; Walter Jording Paschal; Julia A. Paulus; Unnamed Roes and Does, 1-20
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: March 12, 2026
Filed: March 17, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM.
Laura Baldwin appeals following the district court’s1 judgment granting
defendants’ motions to dismiss her civil rights action, which consisted of claims
against defendants who had some role in her state criminal proceedings and in her
prior federal lawsuit. As the district court explained in its rulings, to the extent that
Baldwin’s claims were not subject to dismissal based on ongoing criminal
proceedings, see Wassef v. Tibben, 68 F.4th 1083, 1086-87 (8th Cir. 2023)
(abstention doctrine), the federal and state judges were protected by immunity, see
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam); the prosecutor was protected
by immunity, see Saterdalen v. Spencer, 725 F.3d 838, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2013); and
Baldwin’s complaint failed to sufficiently plead facts to state a claim against the
remaining defendants, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (pleading
requirements); see also Ryno v. City of Waynesville, 58 F.4th 995, 1004-05 (8th Cir.
2023) (qualified immunity). We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of
reconsideration, and no merit to Baldwin’s assertions that the district court failed to
address her various arguments or rule on her motions.
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The pending motion to take
judicial notice of court records in Baldwin’s state criminal proceeding is denied as
moot.
______________________________
1The Honorable Eric F. Melgren, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --