Opinion ID: 778327
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Against the Mayor

Text: 41 Having concluded that Med Corp. has failed to show a deprivation of any constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, we must dismiss the plaintiff's claims as to all defendants, since Med Corp.'s claims against the Mayor are identical to its claims against the City. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court as to all parties. We note, however, that we dismiss Med Corp.'s claims against the Mayor on different grounds than those asserted by the district court. The district court concluded that these claims should be dismissed regardless of whether a protected property or liberty interest had been shown. The district court reasoned that an individual capacity suit could not be maintained against the Mayor because 1) the Mayor never acted in his individual capacity, and 2) the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to individual actions because [t]he Fourteenth Amendment protects property interest[s] only from a deprivation by state action. J.A. at 16 (Dist. Ct. Op. at 7) (quotation omitted). 42 We note, however, that in Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that state officers could not be held personally liable for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. According to the Court, such a rule would be in conflict with prior decisions indicating that Congress enacted § 1983 to enforce provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against those who carry a badge of authority of a State and represent it in some capacity, whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it. Id. at 28, 112 S.Ct. 358 (quotation omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, the fact that Mayor Berger acted in his official capacity as mayor does not immunize him from being sued as an individual under § 1983. The district court's second reason for rejecting the individual capacity suit — that the Fourteenth Amendment protects only against actions of the state — also conflicts with Hafer. The state action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment is satisfied by showing that a state official acted under color of state law, as when the official exercises authority conferred by a state office. Id. at 27-28, 112 S.Ct. 358. The state action requirement does not limit civil rights plaintiffs to suits against only government entities. The district court's interpretation of state action would eliminate all § 1983 suits against individual state officers. Prevailing law dictates a broader interpretation of the state action requirement. As noted above, however, we affirm on other grounds the dismissal of the claims against the Mayor.