Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05083/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05083-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CARLOS E. GUTIERREZ PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5083

CORPORAL WESLEY KERN, in

his Official Capacity Only DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 7th day of September, 2006, come on for

consideration the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate

Judge (document #40), and plaintiff’s Written Objection Pursuant

To 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) (document #41), and the Court, having

carefully reviewed both documents, finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging

that defendant, an employee of the Washington County, Arkansas,

Sheriff’s Department, used excessive force against him during an

altercation at the Washington County Detention Center. Plaintiff

did not specify in what capacity defendant was sued. 

After an evidentiary hearing had been held in the matter, but

before a Report And Recommendation could be issued, the defendant

died. The Magistrate Judge then directed plaintiff to indicate

whether he was bringing suit against defendant in his official

capacity, his individual capacity, or both. The Magistrate Judge

indicated that if the suit included a claim against defendant in

his individual capacity, the Complaint would need to be amended to

substitute the personal representative of defendant’s estate as

Case 5:05-cv-05083-JLH Document 42 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

the proper party defendant.

2. Plaintiff indicated that he was suing defendant in his

official capacity, and the Magistrate Judge proceeded to analyze

the evidence on that basis. In the Report And Recommendation now

under consideration, the Magistrate Judge reported that there was

no evidence of an official policy -- or a pattern of conduct

establishing a custom -- regarding the use of excessive force on

the part of Washington County, Arkansas. Lacking such evidence,

she reported that there is no basis to hold defendant liable in

his official capacity. The Magistrate Judge did not reach the

question of whether the degree of force used in the incident was

excessive, because it was not necessary to make that

determination.

3. Plaintiff objects that when he elected to sue defendant

in his official capacity only, he did not realize that he would

have to prove that Washington County “authorized, acquiesced or

ratified the incident.” He asks leave to present his claim as to

defendant in his individual capacity, and points out that he has

no legal experience and is not represented by counsel.

4. The Court agrees that plaintiff should be allowed to

pursue his claim against defendant in his individual capacity,

given that even experienced lawyers sometimes stumble over the

differences between individual capacity and official capacity

claims. Cf. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985):

Case 5:05-cv-05083-JLH Document 42 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

Proper application of this principle in damages actions

against public official requires careful adherence to

the distinction between personal- and official-capacity

actions suits. Because this distinction apparently

continues to confuse lawyers and confound lower courts,

we attempt to define it more clearly through concrete

examples of the practical and doctrinal differences

between personal and official capacity actions.

The Court thus concludes that the plaintiff should be allowed

both to amend his complaint to assert an individual capacity claim

and to file a motion to substitute the personal representative of

the estate of the defendant as the party defendant in this case;

that plaintiff should be granted twenty (20) days from the date of

this Order in which to file such amendment and motion; and that,

thereafter, the Magistrate Judge should conduct such further

proceedings as may be appropriate and issue a supplemental Report

And Recommendation on the basis of those proceedings.

5. The Court further agrees with the analysis contained in

the Report And Recommendation as it pertains to the official

capacity claim, and finds that it should be adopted to the extent

that it recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against

defendant in his official capacity.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of

The Magistrate Judge is adopted, to the extent that it recommends

dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against Wesley Kern in his

official capacity as an employee of the Washington County

Sheriff’s Department, and that claim is hereby dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Objection to the

Case 5:05-cv-05083-JLH Document 42 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

Report And Recommendation is sustained to the extent that it seeks

leave to amend the Complaint to assert an individual capacity

claim and to the extent it seeks leave to file a motion to

substitute the personal representative of the estate of the

decedent as the defendant in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff be, and he hereby is, granted

twenty (20) days from the date of this Order in which to file such

amendment to his complaint and in which to file such motion to

substitute the personal representative of the estate of the

decedent as the defendant in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be, and it hereby is,

remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05083-JLH Document 42 Filed 09/07/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>