Arbary Jackson v. Missouri Board of Probation ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-3882
    ___________
    Arbary Phillip Jackson,              *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                             * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Missouri Board of Probation and      *
    Parole,                              *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 3, 2008
    Filed: January 9, 2009
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Arbary Jackson appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    complaint. Upon de novo review, see Union Elec. Co. v. Mo. Dept. of Conservation,
    
    366 F.3d 655
    , 657 (8th Cir. 2004), we agree with the district court that Jackson’s
    complaint was barred by sovereign immunity, see Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v.
    Garrett, 
    531 U.S. 356
    , 363 (2001). Jackson’s pro se status does not excuse his failure
    to name the proper parties, see Brown v. Frey, 
    806 F.3d 801
    , 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro
    1
    The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    se litigants are not excused from complying with substantive and procedural law), and
    we decline his request to remand this matter with instructions to allow amendment of
    his complaint, see Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass’n, Inc., 
    161 F.3d 1178
    , 1182 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying request on appeal to amend complaint to name
    defendant in his personal capacity where plaintiff had ample time to seek amendment
    but failed to do so). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
    in denying Jackson’s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St.
    Louis Sewer Dist., 
    440 F.3d 930
    , 933 (8th Cir. 2006).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-