United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1333

___________

Robert H. Reehten, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Larry Buck, Social Worker; Terry * Eastern District of Missouri. 

Rapp, Deputy Superintendent; *

Kenneth Menier, Superintendent, * (UNPUBLISHED)

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 6, 1998

 Filed: October 23, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD 

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert H. Reehten appeals from the district court&s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit. In an amended complaint, Mr. Reehten alleged that his civil rights were

violated while he was housed as a pretrial detainee at the St. Louis County Adult

Correctional Institution in Chesterfield, Missouri (ACI-Gumbo). Mr. Reehten named

three ACI-Gumbo employees as defendants, but did not specify that he was suing them

in their individual capacities. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that

because Mr. Reehten did not specify whether defendants were sued in their individual
-2-

capacities, his suit was assumed to be against defendants in their official capacities

only, and was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

We agree that an action is against defendants only in their official capacities

absent a clear statement that defendants are sued in their individual capacities. See

Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Mr. Reehten&s

official-capacity action against the three defendants amounts to an action against their

municipal employer, St. Louis County. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165

(1985) (official-capacity suits represent another way of pleading action against entity

of which officer is agent); Liebe v. Norton, No. 98-1163, slip op. at 10, 1998 WL

671893, at *4 (8th Cir. Oct. 1, 1998) (action against county sheriff in his official

capacity is treated as suit against county). 

We agree with Mr. Reehten, however, that the district court erred in concluding

that Mr. Reehten&s suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits

damage actions against a state. See Hopkins v. Saunders, 93 F.3d 522, 526 (8th Cir.

1996) (Eleventh Amendment prohibits citizens from suing state for money damages in

federal court); Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 453 (8th Cir. 1985) (noting in § 1983

action, “#[i]t is settled that a suit against a county . . . is not regarded as a suit against

a state within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment&” (citation omitted)). 

Nevertheless, after a thorough review of the record, we believe that dismissal

was appropriate. See Yowell v. Combs, 89 F.3d 542, 544 n.4 (8th Cir. 1996) (this

court may affirm on any grounds supported by record). Mr. Reehten&s complaint fails

to state a claim for relief against St. Louis County, because he did not allege that his

constitutional injuries resulted from any policy of St. Louis County. See McGautha v.

Jackson County, Mo., Collections Dep&t, 36 F.3d 53, 55-56 (8th Cir. 1994) (municipal

liability arises from action pursuant to official municipal policy; explaining potential

sources of municipal policy), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1133 (1995).
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.