Opinion ID: 2974394
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sovereign Immunity for Elliott County

Text: We treat the individual defendants in their official capacities and Elliott County as one in the same. See Leach v. Shelby County Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1244 (6th Cir. 1989). The district court dismissed the federal claims against Elliott County on the basis that “county governments are cloaked in sovereign immunity.” Schwindel v. Meade County, 113 S.W.3d 159, 163 (Ky. 2003). While Elliott County may be immune from suit under Kentucky law, it is not thereby immune from federal suits. “Conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . cannot be immunized by state law.” Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284 (1980). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly refused to extend sovereign immunity to counties ” even where “such entities exercise a ‘slice of state power.’” Northern Ins. Co., v. Chatham County, 126 S.Ct. 1689,1693 (2006) (citations omitted). Elliott County makes no argument that it is immune -4- No. 05-6015 Wilson v. Elliott Cty. et al. under any of the exceptions to the above rule. Therefore, we reverse the district court as to Elliott County and as to Pennington and Fannin in their official capacities.