Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-3380 ___________________________ Angela Parato Plaintiff - Appellant v. City of Omaha, a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska; Jean Stothert, Mayor of the City of Omaha; Todd Schmaderer, Chief of Police of the City of Omaha; Reginald Johnson; Sean Moppin, Employee for the City of Omaha and in his individual capacity; Michelle Peters, Attorney/Employee for/of the City of Omaha and her individual capacity Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: November 2, 2026 Filed: November 5, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before STRAS, KOBES, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. The City of Omaha impounded Angela Parato’s car after she parked it on a public street with expired license plates. We affirm the district court’s 1 refusal to let her amend her complaint a second time. See UMB Bank, N.A. v. Guerin, 89 F.4th 1047, 1057 (8th Cir. 2024) (emphasizing the court’s “considerable discretion” (citation omitted)). Amendment was “disfavored” because the request came “after dismissal” of one she had amended before, id. (citation omitted), even if the district court never entered judgment “in a separate document,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). See Williams v. Norris, 461 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “the district court’s order [on the merits] mark[s] the appropriate threshold between prejudgment and postjudgment motions” (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 847 (9th Cir. 1995))). Futility was also a problem, as the magistrate judge and district court both recognized. See United States ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 822 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing “questions of futility de novo”). Missing were facts “show[ing] each individual defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged violation,” Davis v. City of Little Rock, 122 F.4th 326, 331 (8th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted), or how it was obviously “[un]reasonable for [any of them] to conclude that they had provided [Parato] ‘the fundamentals of due process,’” Bartlett v. Fisher, 972 F.2d 911, 916 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 192 (1984)). Even pro se complaints must “contain sufficient allegations to overcome qualified immunity.” Sandknop v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 932 F.3d 739, 742 (8th Cir. 2019); see Davis, 122 F.4th at 329–30 (“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the official violated a . . . constitutional right and (2) the right 1 The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Michael D. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2- was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” (citation omitted)). In their absence, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -3-