Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306 (8th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306 (8th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics (arizctapp, 2024-03-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See id. at 113-14 (judicial immunity applied to service of facially valid writ); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir. 1986) (judicial immunity extended to seizure of property pursuant to court order to enforce judgment); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (sheriff, acting under direction of court, was immune from suit for purportedly wrongful eviction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See id. at 113-14 (judicial immunity applied to service of facially valid writ); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir. 1986) (judicial immunity extended to seizure of property pursuant to court order to enforce judgment); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (sheriff, acting under direction of court, was immune from suit for purportedly wrongful eviction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Riley v. United States
E.D. Mo. · 2022 · confidence medium
See Rheuport v. Ferguson, 819 F.2d 1459, 1466 (8th Cir. 1987) (determining that plaintiffs had not been denied due process after being evicted from mobile park, as “writ of eviction was obtained through normal channels, and [plaintiffs] had even exercised their right to challenge the action in state courts before termination”); and Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (determining that plaintiff had not been deprived of due process upon eviction, because the state district court proceedings “clearly afforded [plaintiff] due process of law”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. Charles
E.D. Mich. · 2019 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Bush, 38 F.3d at 847 ; Valdez v. City & Cty. of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285 , 1288 (10th Cir. 1989); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smalls v. County of Suffolk
E.D.N.Y · 2019 · confidence medium
Vt. 1997) (citations omitted); see also Rolan v. Phillips, 19 F.3d 552, 556 (11th Cir. 1994) (sheriff entitled to quasi-judicial immunity); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F. 2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir. 1986) (absolute quasi-judicial immunity protected a Sheriff who enforced a money judgment because the Sheriff “was at all times acting pursuant to an official court order”); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (sheriff was immune when he executed a court-ordered warrant of eviction); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (“Ju…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Horton v. Simer
W.D. Ark. · 2019 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Stigall v. Madden, 26 F.3d 867, 869 (8th Cir. 1994) (existence of the warrant shields the deputy “from liability for executing it, unless a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the arrest was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization”); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (sheriff who acted in good faith on a facially valid court order is entitled to qualified immunity); Parsons v. McCann, 138 F. Supp. 3d 1086, 1107 (D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duprey v. TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
D.N.M. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co., Inc. v. Kurtz, 588 F.2d 801, 802-03 (10th Cir.1978) (holding that a receiver named as a defendant in a corporation’s civil rights suit was a court officer entitled to immunity to the extent he carried out the orders of his appointing judge); Coverdell v. Department of Social and Health Serv., 834 F.2d 758, 764-65 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that a social worker who apprehends a child pursuant to a court order is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir.1986) (finding that a sheriff acting pursuant to a court order direct…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS
E.D. Mo. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853 (8th Cir.1988) (court clerk); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (sheriff); Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1290 (10th Cir.1989) (sheriffs); Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir.1981) (court clerk); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) (sheriff); Kermit Constr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wayne King v. Charles Beavers
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 109 (8th Cir.1994); Patterson v. Von Riesen, 999 F.2d' 1235, 1239 (8th Cir.1993); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wayne King v. Charles Beavers
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 109 (8th Cir. 1994); Patterson v. Von Riesen, 999 F.2d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir. 1993); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilkinson ex rel. Wilkinson v. Russell
D. Vt. · 1997 · confidence medium
Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir.1986) (sheriff who acted pursuant to official court order enjoyed quasi-judicial absolute immunity); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (same); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) (“Judicial immunity extends as well to those who carry out the orders of judges.”); Kermit Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) WILKINSON BY AND THROUGH WILKINSON v. Russell
D. Vt. · 1997 · confidence medium
Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir.1986) (sheriff who acted pursuant to official court order enjoyed quasi-judicial absolute immunity); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (same); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) ("Judicial immunity extends as well to those who carry out the orders of judges."); Kermit Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rowe v. Carson
D. Neb. · 1996 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853 (8th Cir.1988) (court clerk); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (sheriff); Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1290 (10th Cir.1989) (same); Waits v. McGowan, 516 F.2d 203 , 206 & n. 6 (3d Cir.1975) (police officers).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patterson v. Von Riesen
8th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853 (8th Cir.1988) (court clerk); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (sheriff); Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1290 (10th Cir.1989) (sheriffs); Coverdell v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758 , 764-65 (9th Cir.1987); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-40 (7th Cir.1986); Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir.1981) (court clerk); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) (sheriff); Kermit Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patterson v. Von Riesen
8th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853 (8th Cir.1988) (court clerk); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (sheriff); Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1290 (10th Cir.1989) (sheriffs); Coverdell v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758 , 764-65 (9th Cir.1987); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-40 (7th Cir.1986); Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir.1981) (court clerk); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) (sheriff); Kermit Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jacobs v. Dujmovic
D. Colo. · 1990 · confidence medium
See also Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1239 (7th Cir.1986) (“[t]he proper procedure for a party who wishes to contest the legality of a court order enforcing a judgment is to appeal ... not to sue the official responsible for its judgment”); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (sheriff immune from § 1983 claims for executing eviction order).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Valdez v. City And County Of Denver
10th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
E.g., Coverdell v. Department of Social and Health Serv., 834 F.2d 758, 764-65 (9th Cir.1987) (social worker accorded absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit arising out of worker's apprehension of child pursuant to court order); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir.1986) (sheriff acting pursuant to court order directing enforcement of judgment entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly wrongful conduct); Property Management & Invs., Inc. v. Lewis, 752 F.2d 599, 602-04 (11th Cir.1985) (receiver of corporation protected by judicial immunity in carrying out orders…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Valdez v. City & County of Denver
10th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
E.g., Coverdell v. Department of Social and Health Serv., 834 F.2d 758, 764-65 (9th Cir.1987) (social worker accorded absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit arising out of worker’s apprehension of child pursuant to court order); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir.1986) (sheriff acting pursuant to court order directing enforcement of judgment entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly wrongful conduct); Property Management & Invs., Inc. v. Lewis, 752 F.2d 599, 602-04 (11th Cir.1985) (receiver of corporation protected by judicial immunity in carrying out orde…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coverdell v. Department of Social & Health Services
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir.1986) (sheriff who acted pursuant to official court order enjoyed quasi-judicial absolute immu nity from liability for damages under section 1983); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (same); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) (“Judicial immunity extends as well to those who carry out the orders of judges.”); Kermit Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coverdell v. Department Of Social And Health Services
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238-39 (7th Cir.1986) (sheriff who acted pursuant to official court order enjoyed quasi-judicial absolute immunity from liability for damages under section 1983); Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (same); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) ("Judicial immunity extends as well to those who carry out the orders of judges."); Kermit Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Scott County Master Docket (2×)
D. Minnesota · 1985 · confidence medium
E.g., Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCurry v. Tesch (2×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
The principle relied upon by the District Court was first enunciated in this Circuit in Rhodes v. Houston, 202 F.Supp. 624, 636 (D.Neb.), aff’d per curiam, 309 F.2d 959 (8th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 909 , 83 S.Ct. 724 , 9 L.Ed.2d 719 (1963), and has been re peated several times, see, e.g., Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam); Guzman v. Western State Bank, 516 F.2d 125, 132 (8th Cir.1975); Duba v. McIntyre, 501 F.2d 590, 592 (8th Cir.1974) (per curiam), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 975 , 96 S.Ct. 1480 , 47 L.Ed.2d 745 (1976); Hevelone v. Thomas, 423 F.Supp. 7, 9 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mccurry v. Tesch (2×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
The principle relied upon by the District Court was first enunciated in this Circuit in Rhodes v. Houston, 202 F.Supp. 624, 636 (D.Neb.), aff'd per curiam, 309 F.2d 959 (8th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 909 , 83 S.Ct. 724 , 9 L.Ed.2d 719 (1963), and has been repeated several times, see, e.g., Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam); Guzman v. Western State Bank, 516 F.2d 125, 132 (8th Cir.1975); Duba v. McIntyre, 501 F.2d 590, 592 (8th Cir.1974) (per curiam), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 975 , 96 S.Ct. 1480 , 47 L.Ed.2d 745 (1976); Hevelone v. Thomas, 423 F.Supp. 7, 9 (D.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dick v. Watonwan County
D. Minnesota · 1982 · confidence medium
Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 900 , 101 S.Ct. 269 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Sebastian v. United States, 531 F.2d 900, 903 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 856 , 97 S.Ct. 153 , 50 L.Ed.2d 133 (1976). 10 *991 In this case, the commitment orders were valid on their face.
discussed Cited "see" Perry v. Encore At Blvd One
10th Cir. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (concluding that a “request for an injunction to enjoin [the plaintiff ’s] ejectment . . . is moot because the record reveals that he was [already] evicted from those premises”).
discussed Cited "see" Stunkel v. Noakes
D. Neb. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (finding a sheriff immune from suit when acting pursuant to a state court order to evict the plaintiff).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Melot (Billy)
10th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (holding that a request to enjoin an order of *763 ejectment is moot because the requesting party had already been evicted from the premises by law enforcement officials).
cited Cited "see" Singer Ex Rel. Singer v. Wadman
D. Utah · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982); Hevelone v. Thomas, 423 F.Supp. 7, 9 (D.Neb.), aff'd, 546 F.2d 797 (8th Cir.1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Carl E. Rose, et al. v. Sheriff Wes Drury, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306 , 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (sheriff acting pursuant to state court order immune from § 1983 suit for damages); Moss v. Kopp, 559 F.3d 1155, 1163 (10th Cir. 2009) (“Just as judges acting in their judicial capacity are absolutely immune from liability under section 1983, officials charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct prescribed in that order.”); Meyer v. Curran, 397 F. Supp. 512, 519 (E.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roach v. Madden
E.D. Ark. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (sheriff acting pursuant to state court order immune from § 1983 suit for damages).; Dick v. Watonwan County, 551 F.Supp. 983, 990-991 (D.Minn.1982) (county sheriff immune from suit arising out of his execution of commitment orders where orders were valid on their face and he acted in good faith).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ruhl v. Niles
4th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Tymiak v. Omoett, 676 F.2d 306 (8th Cir.1982). 8 However, the district court held that this grant of summary judgment in favor of Dempsey and Seib did not apply to the plaintiff's claim "for the alleged use of excessive force" in making the arrest, and, in connection with that charge, the motion for summary judgment in their favor was denied.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." John T. Henry and Evelyn I. Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, an Illinois Banking Corporation, Defendants
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir.1982) (sheriff acting pursuant to state court order immune from § 1983 suit for damages); Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir.1981) (court clerks entitled to absolute immunity from actions for damages arising from acts they are specifically required to do under court order or at judge’s direction); Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) (sheriff protected by immunity of judges under whose orders he acted); Kermit Constr.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roman S. Tymiak
v.
Donald J. Omodt, Individually and as Hennepin County Sheriff Charles P. Wikman, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lillian Wikman-Morse Ann Swenson, Guy Wikman, Sharlie Wikman, Jeanne E. Wikman, Terry W. Anderson, Charles P. Wikman, Jr., Michael E. Wikman and Richard A. Wikman
82-1146.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Apr 27, 1982.
676 F.2d 306
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

676 F.2d 306

Roman S. TYMIAK, Appellant,
v.
Donald J. OMODT, individually and as Hennepin County
Sheriff; Charles P. Wikman, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Lillian Wikman-Morse; Ann
Swenson, Guy Wikman, Sharlie Wikman, Jeanne E. Wikman, Terry
W. Anderson, Charles P. Wikman, Jr., Michael E. Wikman and
Richard A. Wikman, Appellees.

No. 82-1146.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 21, 1982.
Decided April 27, 1982.

Roman S. Tymiak, pro se.

James T. Swenson, Mackall, Crounse & Moore, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees Charles P. Wikman, Ann Swenson, Guy Wikman, Sharlie Wikman, Jeanne E. Wikman, Terry W. Anderson, Charles P. Wikman, Jr., Michael R. Wikman, and Richard A. Wikman.

Paul F. Gilles, Sr., Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee Donald J. Omodt.

Before HEANEY, ROSS and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Roman S. Tymiak appeals from the district court's[1] December 29, 1981, order which dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit.[2] We affirm.

2

Tymiak's section 1983 claims are based on a dispute for ownership of a certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The property consists of the premises located at 3524 Fremont Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota.[3] Tymiak claims that Lillian Wikman-Morse, the fee owner of those premises, promised him legal title to the property "in consideration of (Tymiak's) personal, domestic and protective services rendered to (Wikman-Morse) and such property until (Wikman-Morse's) death."[4] Tymiak attempts to buttress his claim to the property by alleging that he and Wikman-Morse, between October 1, 1975, and November 19, 1980, "lived under the same roof * * *, sharing bed and board, in a relationship which was functionally equivalent to a marriage * * *."

3

However, Wikman-Morse left the real property to Charles P. Wikman, Ann Swenson, Guy Wikman, Sharlie Wikman, Jeanne E. Wikman, Terry W. Anderson, Charles P. Wikman, Jr., Michael R. Wikman and Richard A. Wikman as legatees and devisees under her will.[5] These nine individuals, hereafter collectively referred to as the "legatees/devisees," commenced an action for ejectment in the Hennepin County, Minnesota, district court on January 7, 1981, in which they sought to gain possession of the property claimed by Tymiak.[6] On October 23, 1981, Hennepin County District Judge Crane Winton ruled that "the undisputed facts clearly show that the plaintiffs' (the nine legatees/devisees and also Charles Wikman separately as the estate's personal representative) claim to title and right to possession of the property are superior to those asserted by Mr. Tymiak and compel the conclusion that as against defendant (Tymiak), they are entitled to possession of the home." Therefore, Judge Winton: (1) granted summary judgment in the plaintiffs' favor; (2) issued a "writ of restitution" for the premises at 3524 Fremont Avenue South in Minneapolis; and (3) ordered Tymiak to vacate the premises.[7] Tymiak apparently did not seek review of Judge Winton's October 23, 1981, order in the Minnesota Supreme Court.

4

On November 6, 1981, Tymiak filed the instant section 1983 action in federal court.[8] The complaint named as defendants Hennepin County Sheriff Donald J. Omodt, Charles P. Wikman as personal representative of the Wikman-Morse estate and the nine legatees/devisees. Tymiak asserted various constitutional claims which allegedly entitled him to an order enjoining his eviction from the premises at 3524 Fremont Avenue South and an award of monetary damages. In addition, Tymiak filed a separate motion, also on November 6, 1981, for a preliminary injunction which would enjoin his eviction from the home at 3524 Fremont Avenue South. After argument before the district court, the motion was denied.[9]

5

Defendant Sheriff Omodt filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment on November 25, 1981. The defendants other than Omodt also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted on November 25, 1981. On December 21, 1981, these motions, after argument before the district court, was orally granted by Judge Devitt. On December 29, 1981, Judge Devitt entered a written order which held that: (1) because Sheriff Omodt's actions in evicting Tymiak were under the direction of the Hennepin County district court, he was immune from suit under section 1983; and (2) because Tymiak's complaint failed to allege that the remaining defendants acted under color of state law, Tymiak failed to state a claim against those defendants upon which relief could be granted.[10] Judgment dismissing the suit was entered accordingly, and Tymiak filed a timely notice of appeal.

6

Initially, we note that Tymiak's request for an injunction to enjoin his ejectment from the Wikman-Morse home is moot because the record reveals that he was evicted from those premises by Hennepin County law enforcement officials.

7

The district court correctly held that Sheriff Omodt was immune from Tymiak's section 1983 claims for damages. This Court previously has held that a sheriff who, pursuant to a state court order, evicted several persons from the homes they occupied was immune from a section 1983 lawsuit which sought damages and injunctive relief based on that eviction. See Hevelone v. Thomas, 423 F.Supp. 7, 9 (D.Neb.), aff'd, 546 F.2d 797 (8th Cir. 1976). See also Farmer v. Lawson, 510 F.Supp. 91, 95 (N.D.Ga.1981) (a public official acting pursuant to a court directive is generally immune from suit, such as a sheriff seizing property).

8

The district court's dismissal of Tymiak's allegations against the remaining defendants was also correct. The Fourteenth Amendment protects only against deprivations of a constitutionally protected interest without due process of law. E.g., Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 537, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981). Even if we assume Tymiak had a constitutionally protected interest in the property which was taken by the remaining defendants under color of state law, the Hennepin County state district court proceedings with respect to the Wikman-Morse property clearly afforded Tymiak due process of law.

9

Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Tymiak's section 1983 lawsuit.

10

Affirmed.

1

The Honorable Edward J. Devitt, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota

2

The district court's December 29, 1981, order granted defendant Donald J. Omodt's motion to dismiss Tymiak's complaint "whether treated as a (Federal) Rule (of Civil Procedure) 12 motion or a (Federal) Rule (of Civil Procedure) 56 motion * * *." It also dismissed Tymiak's claims against the other named defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

3

Those premises apparently consist of a home, the personalty in the home and the surrounding property

4

Lillian Wikman-Morse died on November 19, 1980

5

Charles P. Wikman is the duly nominated and appointed personal representative of Wikman-Morse's estate

6

The ejectment action was necessary because Tymiak continued to live in the home after Wikman-Morse's death and subsequently refused to surrender the premises to Charles Wikman, the personal representative of the Wikman-Morse estate

7

Judge Winton's order also reveals that Tymiak initiated three separate legal actions in the Minnesota state courts concerning this property. First, he commenced an action against Charles Wikman as personal representative of the Wikman-Morse estate "for specific performance, accounting and other equitable relief." That action was dismissed on June 30, 1981, for Tymiak's failure to comply with a state district judge's order which directed Tymiak to answer certain interrogatories propounded by Wikman and to pay $500 to Wikman's attorney for fees Wikman incurred in pursuing the successful motion to compel answers to interrogatories. In addition, Tymiak was fined $50 for contempt because he also failed to comply with another state district court judge's order directing him to pay $500 per month into a trust account as rent for the house until that litigation was ended

Second, a state district judge dismissed a declaratory judgment action Tymiak brought against the heirs under Wikman-Morse's will.

Finally, Tymiak also appealed an order of the state Probate Court which allowed the issuance of letters testamentary to Charles Wikman.

The record does not reveal whether Tymiak appealed from the orders issued in the first two state court actions described above and, if so, whether such appeals are pending. Similarly, the record does not reveal whether Tymiak's appeal from the Probate Court order is currently pending.

8

A United States Magistrate permitted Tymiak, who is an attorney, to file the action in forma pauperis

9

Tymiak was subsequently evicted from the home at 3524 Fremont Avenue South by Hennepin County law enforcement officials pursuant to the October 23, 1981, order of the Hennepin County District Court

10

Although Tymiak subsequently submitted a memorandum dated December 4, 1981, in which he alleged that the defendants other than Sheriff Omodt acted under color of state law, his complaint made no such allegation. Our disposition of this case with respect to these defendants makes it unnecessary to consider whether they acted under color of state law for section 1983 purposes