Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00368/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00368-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0368-WS-M

 )

MARENGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the motions of defendants Marengo County

Sheriff’s Department (“Marengo”), City of Linden Police Department (“Linden”), and

City of Demopolis Police Department (“Demopolis”) to dismiss. (Docs. 12, 16, 18). The

parties have filed briefs in support of their respective positions, (Docs. 13, 17, 19, 23-28),

and the motions are ripe for resolution. After carefully considering the foregoing

materials, the Court concludes that Marengo’s motion is due to be granted and that the

motions of Linden and Demopolis are due to be denied.

A defendant’s legal capacity to be sued is determined by the law of the forum

court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). “Under Alabama law, a county sheriff’s department lacks

the capacity to be sued.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 1992); accord

White v. Birchfield, 582 So. 2d 1085, 1087 (Ala. 1991) (“The Chambers County Sheriff’s

Department is not a legal entity subject to suit.”). As the plaintiff recognizes, this holding

is dispositive of Marengo’s motion to dismiss. However, the plaintiff argues that no

similar controlling pronouncement has been made with respect to municipal police

departments. 

Linden and Demopolis respond that “[s]heriff’s departments and police

departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit ....” Dean v. Barber,

Case 2:06-cv-00368-WS-M Document 33 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 3
1

Jones predates Dean and so cites no authority at all.

2

In some states, a municipal police department is a suable entity. See Shaw v.

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 1986). In others,

it may or may not be suable, depending on the circumstances. E.g., Cooper v. Smith,

2007 WL 339174 at *8 (E.D. Tex. 2007); Slaughter v. Billiot, 2006 WL 456488 at *1-2

(W.D. La. 2006). 

-2-

951 F.2d at 1214 (emphasis added). This may be the “usua[l]” situation but, in the same

paragraph, the Dean Court confirmed that, in any particular case, the issue must be

decided by reference to the forum state’s law. Id. Dean does not hold that an Alabama

municipal police department is not a suable entity under Alabama law, and it could

scarcely have done so, since the case involved only a sheriff’s department. 

Demopolis and Linden neither cite to an Alabama case addressing the suability of

a municipal police department nor offer an analysis of Alabama law from which their

favored conclusion could be derived. Instead, they simply note that three district court

cases have decided that an Alabama municipal police department is not a suable entity. 

Hinson v. West, 2006 WL 1526895 at *2 (M.D. Ala. 2006); Bryant v. Wilson, 1992 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 15364 at *11 (S.D. Ala. 1992); Jones v. Mobile City Police Department,

1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14691 at *1 (S.D. Ala. 1991). The trouble is that none of these

cases is supported by anything more than a citation to Dean.

1

Whatever the common result,2 the suability of a municipal police department

remains a question to be answered by resort to state law. The Court’s own brief inquiry

reflects that Alabama police departments are occasionally named as defendants and

pursued through appeal without question. See, e.g., Stephens v. City of Huntsville, 813

So. 2d 843 (Ala. 2001); Boshell v. Jasper Police Department, 555 So. 2d 898 (Ala. 1989). 

It also suggests that a suit against a police department may serve as the functional

equivalent of a suit against the municipality. See Brooks v. City of Dothan Police

Department, 562 So. 2d 162, 163 (Ala. 1990) (describing a suit against a police

department as one “against the City of Dothan”). These cases do not establish the content

Case 2:06-cv-00368-WS-M Document 33 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

of Alabama law, but they bolster the unremarkable conclusion that something more than

reference to a national trend is needed to show that a police department may not be sued

in Alabama. See also Tortorella v. City of Orange, 2007 WL 151396 at *3 (D.N.J. 2007)

(denying a municipal police department’s motion for summary judgment because it relied

on Pennsylvania law rather than New Jersey law concerning the suability of such an

entity); Slaughter v. Billiot, 2006 WL 456488 at *1-2 (W.D. La. 2006) (denying a

municipal police department’s motion to dismiss because it failed to provide an analysis

of Louisiana law concerning its capacity to be sued).

“A motion to dismiss [for failure to state a claim] may be granted only when a

defendant demonstrates beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Kirwin v. Price Communications

Corp., 391 F.3d 1323, 1325 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotes omitted). As facially

plausible (and potentially meritorious) as their position is, the superficial briefing offered

by Linden and Demopolis does not satisfy this exacting standard.

 For the reasons set forth above, Marengo’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the

motions to dismiss filed by Linden and Demopolis are denied, without prejudice to their

ability to again seek dismissal based on a more adequate showing.

DONE and ORDERED this 15 day of February, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00368-WS-M Document 33 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 3