Opinion ID: 1937605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the sheriff's department is a political subdivision which may be sued under the tort claims act

Text: ¶ 8. This Court reviews errors of law, which include the proper application of the MTCA, de novo. Maldonado v. Kelly, 768 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss.2000). Further, this Court has stated that when reviewing a decision to dismiss on a 12(b)(6) motion [2] , the case should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim. HeartSouth, PLLC v. Boyd, 865 So.2d 1095, 1101 (Miss.2003) (citing Butler v. Bd. of Supervisors for Hinds County, 659 So.2d 578, 581 (Miss.1995)). ¶ 9. This Court has recognized the MTCA requirement that a governmental entity, including a political subdivision, against which a money judgment is sought must be named as a defendant, unless the action is brought solely against an employee acting outside the scope of his employment. Conrod v. Holder, 825 So.2d 16,19 (Miss.2002) (citing with approval Mallery v. Taylor, 805 So.2d 613, 622 (Miss.Ct.App. 2002)). A Sheriff's Department is not explicitly referred to as a governmental entity in the non-exhaustive list set forth in the MTCA, but the terms governmental entity and political subdivision are used interchangeably. [3] A political subdivision is defined as: [A]ny body politic or body corporate other than the state responsible for governmental activities only in geographic areas smaller than that of the state, including but not limited to, any county, municipality, school district, community hospital as defined in Section 41-13-10, Mississippi Code of 1972, airport authority or other instrumentality thereof, whether or not such a body or instrumentality thereof has the authority to levy taxes or to sue or be sued in its own name. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i). ¶ 10. Brown argues the Sheriff's Department is a political subdivision within the meaning of the statute, and therefore the case should not have been dismissed, citing cases from this Court that have been allowed to proceed under the MTCA with a sheriff's department as the sole political subdivision defendant. See Love v. Sunflower County Sheriff's Dept., 860 So.2d 797 (Miss.2003) (dismissed on summary judgment under the governmental entities exemption provided in MTCA 11-46-9(1)(m) when the claimant was an inmate.); Lee v. Thompson, 859 So.2d 981 (Miss. 2003) (dismissed under the inmate exemption); Liggans v. Coahoma County Sheriff's Dept., 823 So.2d 1152 (Miss.2002) (motion to dismiss proper under the inmate exemption provided in 11-46-9(1)(m)). Brown's reliance on these cases is misplaced, however, because the issue of whether the sheriff's department was a political subdivision was not raised nor was it addressed in any of these cases. ¶ 11. The Sheriff's Department correctly argues it is not a political subdivision, and that Bolivar County should have been named as the governmental defendant in the suit, citing Conrod, 825 So.2d at 19, in which the plaintiff named the sheriff and deputy sheriff, but failed to name a governmental entity as a defendant. This court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in Conrod, saying, inter alia, that the plaintiff should have named the county as a defendant political subdivision. Id. at 20. On appeal, this Court addressed that the only two defendants named were individual people. The Sheriff's Department also cites Whiting v. Tunica County Sheriff's Dept., 222 F.Supp.2d 809 (N.D.Miss.2002), in which the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi found the sheriff's office was not amenable to suit according to Mississippi law, because the plaintiff failed to show it enjoyed an existence separate from the county. Id. at 825-26. ¶ 12. This is a case of first impression, and we are asked to interpret this relevant part of the MTCA. After reviewing the language of the MTCA, as well as other pertinent statutory law and case law, we hold that sheriff's departments are not political subdivisions within the meaning of the MTCA. Thus, the Sheriff's Department does not enjoy a separate legal existence, apart from Bolivar County, and the case was properly dismissed for failure to name a political subdivision defendant. ¶ 13. A review of the structural relationship between counties and sheriff's departments supports this holding. Miss. Code Ann. Section 19-25-13 (Rev. 2003) sets forth the procedures for budgeting and financing Sheriff's Departments, stating that first the Sheriff submits a budget of estimated expenses of his office. Then it provides that the [county board of supervisors] shall examine this proposed budget and determine the amount to be expended by the sheriff in the performance of his duties for the fiscal year and may increase or reduce said amount as it deems necessary and proper.  (Emphasis added). It goes on to state that [t]he budget shall include amounts for compensating the deputies and other employees of the sheriff's office for such expenses as insurance providing protection for the sheriff and his deputies in case of disability, death, and other similar coverage ... and for such other expenses as may be incurred in the performance of the duties of the office of sheriff. The money flows from the county, which would suggest that judgments against the sheriff or deputies are ultimately paid out of the county treasury. Miss.Code Ann. Section 19-25-19 states that [e]very sheriff shall have power to appoint one or more deputies to assist in carrying out the duties of his office and to remove them at pleasure, and to fix their compensation, subject to the budget for the sheriff's office approved by the county board of supervisors. [4] ¶ 14. The proper governmental entity to name as defendant in this suit is Bolivar County, not the Bolivar County Sheriff's Department, as the trial judge correctly found.