Capacity and Liability

42 U.S.C. § 1983, allows individuals to sue state and local government officials for violating their constitutional rights. 

The statute was a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1871... 

also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. 

In the context of suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "capacity" refers to whether a defendant is sued in their official capacity (representing the government entity) or individual capacity (as a person), which significantly impacts liability and available remedies. 

Individual or Official Capacity?

State officials in their individual capacity can be sued for damages

Suing a defendant in their individual capacity means the lawsuit is against the person themselves, not the government entity. 

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for monetary damages against officials acting in their individual capacity, but they may be able to raise qualified immunity defenses. 

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 

State officials in their official capacity can be sued for injunctive relief but NOT for damages 

When a defendant is sued in their official capacity, the lawsuit is considered an action against the government entity (e.g., state, city, agency) that employs the defendant, not the individual themselves. 

Suing in official capacity might be subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity, which limits the ability to sue states for monetary damages in federal court. 

However, suits for injunctive or declaratory relief (e.g., ordering a change in policy) are generally not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. 

Relevant Considerations:

A local government unit [Municipality/County] will be liable under Section 1983 only when the alleged violation was the product of an official policy or custom. The test for determining whether a local government can be deemed liable was spelled out by the Supreme Court in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 US 658(1978) and further established that states are not considered "persons" for the purposes of § 1983. 

Key Takeaways:

• Municipal Liability: The Monell decision established that municipalities could be held liable for the actions of their employees, but only when those actions were the result of an official policy, custom, or practice. 

• No "Respondeat Superior" Liability: The court clarified that municipalities were not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior (where an employer is liable for the actions of its employees). 

• Significance: The Monell decision significantly expanded the ability of individuals to sue municipalities for civil rights violations, allowing for greater accountability for governmental actions. 

In general, Section 1983 liability will not be predicated solely on a theory of respondeat superior. For example, a police chief, Sheriff, or other supervisor or manager will not automatically be deemed vicariously liable simply because he or she sits higher on the chain of command than an officer who violated an individual’s constitutional rights. A supervisory official will be liable only when he or she plays an affirmative part in the complaint of misconduct.

Don't Forget:

Join our Discord Community
&

Subscribe to The Oversight Chronicles!