Document: 502 U.S. 21 112 S.Ct. 358 116 L.Ed.2d 301 Barbara HAFER, petitionerv.James C. MELO, Jr., et al. No. 90-681. Argued Oct. 15, 1991. Decided Nov. 5, Syllabus After petitioner Hafer, the newly elected Auditor General of Pennsylvania, discharged respondents from their jobs in her office, they sued for, inter alia, monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed latter claims Will v. Michigan Dept. State Police, 491 58, 71, 109 2304, 2311, 105 45, which held that state officials "acting official capacities" are outside class "persons" subject to liability In reversing this ruling, Appeals found sought Hafer personal capacity and that, because she acted color law, could maintain a 1983 individual-capacity suit against her. Held: officers may be personally liable for based upon actions taken capacities. Pp. 25-31. (a) above-quoted language does not establish "act[ed]" capacity. considered were official-capacity claims, phrase is best understood as reference officer sued, inflicts alleged injury. 25-27. (b) officials, individual capacities, within meaning Unlike defendants—who assume identity government employs them, Will, supra, at S.Ct., 2311—officers come court individuals thus fit comfortably statutory term "person," cf. U.S., n. 10, 10. Moreover, 1983's authorization suits redress deprivations civil rights by persons acting "under of" law means discharging precisely authority General. Her assertion acts both official's necessary performance governmental functions (including employment decisions issue) should cannot give rise personal-capacity action unpersuasive. That contention ignores Court's holding was enacted enforce provisions Fourteenth Amendment those who carry badge represent it some capacity, whether act accordance with or misuse it. Scheuer Rhodes, 416 232, 243, 94 1683, 1689, 40 90. Furthermore, Hafer's theory would absolutely immunize solely virtue "official" nature acts, contravention immunity decisions. See, e.g., Scheuer, supra. 27-29. (c) Eleventh bar federal court. Id., 237, 238, 1686, 1687. concerning read establishing limits Amendment, since arose only fact Congress did intend override when relevant construction. 66, 2309. Although imposing on hamper public duties, such concerns properly addressed framework jurisprudence. 29-31. 912 F.2d 628 (CA3 1990), affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, all other Members joined, except THOMAS, took no part consideration decision case. Jerome R. Richter, Philadelphia, Pa., petitioner. William Goldstein, respondents. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 45 (1989), we 2311. Petitioner takes mean authorize arising acts. We reject reading hold capacities purposes 2 * 1988, election post Pennsylvania. Respondents allege during campaign United States Attorney James West gave list employees General's Office secured through payments former employee office. App. They further publicly promised fire if elected. Ibid. 3 won election. Shortly after becoming General, 18 employees, including named respondent Melo, basis "bought" jobs. Melo seven terminated Federal asserted claim 1983, damages. Carl Gurley remaining case also lost soon These them Democratic political affiliation support opponent 1988 28, 35, 40. too filed seeking reinstatement 4 consolidating actions, claims. part, barred because, made 5 Third Circuit reversed portion decision. (1990). As brought rested our statement injunctive relief See Turning respondents' six members group had expressly plaintiffs "although explicit, signified similar intent." F.2d, 636.* critical. While power hire derived position said, exercise Because 6 granted certiorari, 498 ----, 111 1070, 1176 (1991), address question II 7 Kentucky Graham, 473 159, 3099, 87 114 (1985), eliminate lingering confusion about distinction between personal- suits. emphasized " 'generally another way pleading an entity agent.' 165, 3104 (quoting Monell New York City Social Servs., 436 658, 690, 55, 98 2018, 2035, 56 611 (1978)). A therefore treated State. 166, 3105. Indeed, dies leaves successor automatically assumes role litigation. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 25(d)(1); App.Proc. 43(c)(1); Rule 35.3. real party interest official, "the entity's 'policy custom' must have played violation law." 3105 Monell, 694, 2037). For same reason, immunities available defendant possesses. 167, 8 Personal-capacity suits, hand, seek impose law. Thus, "[o]n merits, action, enough show caused deprivation right." plaintiff need connection "policy custom," unlike assert defenses objectively reasonable reliance existing 166-167, 3105-3106. 9 Our turned these differences actions. principal issue Section provides, part: 10 "Every person who, any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, . subjects, causes subjected, citizen jurisdiction thereof rights, privileges, Constitution laws, shall injured. ." 11 interpreting words "[e]very person" exclude accorded most natural its legislative history, rule clearly intention alter 'the balance' seeks do so. 65, 2308 Bass, 404 336, 349, 92 515, 523, 30 488 (1971)). 12 then related not. "state literally persons," "is but rather different itself." 2311 (citation omitted). 13 Summarizing holding, said: "[N]either nor 'persons' 1983." relies recapitulation proposition Of course, claims; To extent allows construction suggests, however, now ambiguity. A. 14 itself makes clear more than "a mere device." them. By contrast, individuals. fits "person." Cf. id., ("[A] his relief, 'official-capacity prospective State' ") 14, 3106, 14). 15 overcome official- arguing turns injuring plaintiff. Under asserts, take one has endorsed view, see Cowan University Louisville School Medicine, 900 936, 942-943 (CA6 find unpersuasive interpretation foreclosed prior 16 Through "to remedy parties deprived constitutional privileges abuse position." Monroe Pape, 365 172, 81 473, 476, 492 (1961). Accordingly, authorized [state] usage." requirement accept novel insulates suit. 17 effort limit scope argument, distinguishes two categories law: essential operation government, functions. Only group, can 1983; case) action. urges finds broad contrary, 'to it.' 90 (1974) 171-172, 475-476). intent, just Amendment's action" requirement. Lugar Edmondson Oil Co., 457 922, 929, 102 2744, 2749, 73 482 (1982). 19 reconciled regarding otherwise done course duties. fulfilling responsibilities. Yet cases extend absolute engage Rather, "predicated inquiry into historically common interests behind it," Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 421, 96 984, 990, 47 128 (1976), justified function issue, Burns Reed, 500 1934, 547 (1991). 20 This refused beyond very limited President States, legislators carrying out functions, judges judicial "whose special status requires complete protection suit." Harlow Fitzgerald, 800, 807, 2727, 2732, 396 executive entitled several instances, moreover, concluded qualified attaches administrative decisions, even performing Forrester White, 484 219, 108 538, 555 (1988) (dismissal judge); supra (discharge Air Force employee, allegedly orchestrated senior White House aides) (Bivens action); Davis Passman, 442 228, 99 2264, 60 846 (1979) congressional aide) action). supports argument here. B asks us Will's Amendment. She asserts officeholders infringe sovereignty rendering less effective; thus, argues, forbids 22 Most certainly, rest directly Whereas bars "by private paid funds treasury," Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 663, 1347, 1355, 39 662 (1974), construction: "Given purpose enactment provide forum claims," Congress' failure courts suggested courts. 23 argues itself, failed representatives estates three students died Kent May 1970 Governor Ohio officials. complaints although substance 24 rejected view. "[S]ince Ex parte Young, 209 123 [28 441, 52 L.Ed. 714] (1908)," "it been settled provides shield confronted he right doctrine Young apply where treasury, awards defendants "are permissible circumstances notwithstanding office." is, erect barrier "individual liability" 25 sure, But 223, 542. Insofar personally, restrict ability sue 26 immune judgment 27 Affirmed. 28 THOMAS looked proceedings below determine certain 628, 635-636 Several Courts adhere practice. Conner Reinhard, 847 384, 394, (CA7), cert. denied, 856, 147, 118 (1988); Houston Reich, 932 883, 885 (CA10 1991); Lundgren McDaniel, 814 600, 603-604 (CA11 1987). Still others rigid Wells Brown, 891 591, 592 1989) (§ specifically plead capacity); Nix Norman, 879 429, 431 (CA8 (same). before us, simply reiterate Circuit's view "[i]t obviously preferable specific first instance avoid ambiguity." 636, 7. 14.1(a) ("Only questions set forth petition, fairly included therein, will Court").

Category: 1