Court Opinion

ID: 9911099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 16:01:40.912093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:14.629125
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14320    Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2023    Page: 1 of 2

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14320
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       KEVIN HARDAWAY,
                                               Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DWIGHT HAMILTON, et al.,

                                               Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:14-CV-0542-CAP
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14320      Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       21-14278               Opinion of the Court                         2

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Kevin Hardaway appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
       Eighth Amendment oﬃcial-capacity claims, brought pursuant to
       42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Dekalb County and its sheriﬀ. We aﬃrm.
              The district premised its dismissal order on this circuit’s
       decision in Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1328 (11th Cir. 2003 (en
       banc) (holding that a Georgia sheriﬀ is an arm of the state when
       establishing use of force policies at a jail and training and
       disciplinary employees as to use of force). Mr. Hardaway
       acknowledges Manders and its applicability, but argues that it was
       wrongly decided and should be overruled by the court sitting en
       banc. See Appellant’s Br. at 18-42.
              Manders was a 6-5 decision, and some judges on our court
       have recently called for its re-evaluation. See Andrews v. Biers, 996
       F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2021) (Wilson, J., and Rosenbaum, J., each
       separately concurring). But as a panel we are bound by Manders
       and therefore aﬃrm the district court’s order.
             AFFIRMED.