Source: http://www.scarrittlaw.com/In-The-News/ArticleID/13/Defending-the-Sovereign-in-Subsection-1983-Police-Misconduct-Cases-An-Overview
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:35:53+00:00

Document:
From "The Florida Bar Journal"
The number of cases involving civil rights litigation as a result of alleged police misconduct has grown exponentially within recent years. The plethora of case law arising from this surge of litigation has made civil rights one of the most rapidly expanding areas of the law. This article will provide a brief overview of the law concerning liability of a sovereign in police misconduct cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. subsection 1983. The vast number of issues raised in civil rights actions obviously precludes an exhaustive analysis. However, the article will explore the basic burden of proof requirements and some defenses which are available in this type of claim.
Cases which followed Daniels have extended the Court's exclusion of negligence actions to fact patterns which involve the alleged failure to protect a prison inmate from another inmate,20 and the alleged negligence of an officer who arrested a pretrial detainee who committed suicide.21 Accordingly, it appears that the question of whether a particular action will be sustained in the context of subsection 1983 depends largely on the pleader's classification of the facts giving rise to the action. See, e.g., Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of the City of Houston, Texas, 791 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir. 1986) (subsection 1983 complaint of parents of pretrial detainee who committed suicide satisfactorily alleged a claim for failure to staff, train, and supervise detention center); Ramirez v. Garcia, 898 F.2d 224 1st Cir. 1990) (negligence-based complaint alleged sufficient facts which a jury could feasibly conclude constituted a violation of the due process clause); Burch v. Apalachee Community Mental Health Services, Inc., 840 F.2d 797 (11th Cir. 1988) (allegation that plaintiff was never provided with court ordered evaluation necessary for involuntary placement in mental treatment facility stated claim for relief under subsection 1983); Taylor v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791 (11th Cir. 1987) (allegation that state and county officials were grossly negligent and deliberately indifferent in placing a child with abusive foster parents stated claim for relief under subsection 1983).
Courts have long recognized that the Eleventh Amendment bar cannot be circumvented by simply naming an individual state official or agency as a nominal defendant, where the state is in fact the real party in interest.27 Accordingly, courts will look at several factors in making the determination of whether the state is the "real party in interest," and therefore entitled to the protection of the Eleventh Amendment.
Although the express language of subsection 1983 appears to be an all-embracing reference to "the Constitution," it should be noted that the Supreme Court declined to give it a broad interpretation for several years.35 Upon review of cases which follow Monell,36 it becomes apparent that the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of a civil rights claimant's recovery under subsection 1983, but limited procedural aspects with regard to the "policy or custom" requirement, and further instilled limitations with regard to negligence-based actions and availability of sovereign immunity defenses. As the case law continues to define the scope of subsection 1983, it will be interesting to see how courts further interpret the act.
1 Howlett by and through Howlett v. Rosa, 100 S. Ct. 2430, 2433 (1990).
2 42 U.S.C. subsection 1983 (1982).
3 Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 96 S. Ct. 2018, 2035-36 (1978).
4 See, e.g., Rivas v. Freeman, 940 F.2d 1401 (11th Cir. 1991).
5 City of Canton v. Harris, 109 S. Ct. 1197, 1199 (1989).
6 City of St. Louis v. Peaprotnik, 108 S. Ct. 915, 925, n. 2 (1988).
7 Pembauer v. Cincinnati, 106 S. Ct. 1292, 1297-1298 (1985).
8 City of Canton v. Harris, 109 S. Ct. 1197, at 1205 (1989). Accord. Zetler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397 (11th Cir. 1986); Arthur v. Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice; ____ So.2d _____, 16 F.L.D. 1299, 1299 (Fla. 2d C.A. May 8, 1991).
9 Rivas, 940 F.2d at 1492.
17 Daniels v. Williams, 106 S. Ct. 662, at 663 (1986); See also Parrott v. Taylor, 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1961); Green v. Inman, 539 So. 2d 816 815 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1989).
18 Daniels, 106 S. Ct. at 652.
19 Id. at 663. See also Kamenesh v. City of Miami, _____ So. 2d _____, 5 F.L.W. Fed. D449, D454, (S.D. Fla. July 15, 1991).
20 Davison v. Cannon, 106 S. Ct. 868 (1986).
21 Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officer of the city of Houston, Texas, 791 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir. 1986).
22 "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects or any foreign state." U.S. CONST. amend.XI.
24 See, e.g., Gelber v. Rozas, 584 F.Supp. 902, 904 (S.D. Fla 1984).
25 Edelman, 94 S, Ct. at 1363.
26 Cate, 707 F.2d at 1181.
27 Ronwin v. Shapiro, 857 F.2d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir. 1981).
28 Cate, 707 F.2d at 1181. Other considerations include the role of the office of entity in the state constitution, whether the entity has any existence independent of the state, and whether the defendant is a policymaker for its territory. Bailey v. Wictzack, 735 F.Supp. 1016, 1019-1020 (M.D. Fla. 1990).
29 Hufford v. Rodgers, 912 F.2d. 1338 at 1340 (11th Cir. 1990).
33 Id. at 1342. But see Parker v. Willis, 862 F.2d 1471, 1480 (11th Cir. 1989) (Alabama county sheriff was not state employee and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, but could be considered as county official in performance of some functions.
34 Schopler v. Bliss, 903 F.2d 1373, 1378 (11th Cir. 1990).
36 Monell v. New York city Department of Social Services, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978).
This column is submitted on behalf of the Trial Lawyers Section, Jean A Bice, chair, and Samuel R. Mandelbaum, editor.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.