Court Holds Sheriff Not Subject to Damages Under Section 1983
Overview: The California Court of Appeal clarified that the Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply in civil rights actions brought in California courts. As a result, state officials will no longer be asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity in state court cases. Therefore, the only categorical defense available for state officials in civil rights actions is that the official is not a “person” under Section 1983, and thus not subject to suit at all.
Training Points: This ruling may affect the manner in which law enforcement agencies approach suits under Section 1983, a statute allowing litigants to file civil actions for deprivations of their constitutional rights. Whether an individual officer is subject to suit under 1983 will depend on whether they were acting in an official capacity or in a personal capacity at the time of the alleged conduct. If they were acting in their personal capacity, they will be subject to liability.
Summary Analysis: In Pierce v. San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department, Pierce filed a civil rights action under Section 1983 against the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department and individual members of the department alleging violations of her Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, Pierce alleged the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Gang Task Force conducted a warrantless search of her home. She further alleged the deputies conducted a probation search of another individual, who was not a resident of her home or on probation at the time the search was conducted. The County was successful in having the case against it dismissed. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against the County but reversed as to the individual deputies.
The appellate court referenced California Supreme Court decision Venegas v. County of Los Angeles which clarified the basis and rationale for dismissal of the County, but not the individual deputies. In Venegas the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a sheriff acts on behalf of the state or county when conducting a criminal investigation. This question is critical since state officials are not considered “persons” under 1983, however local officials are. The court in Venegas held that sheriffs conducting a criminal investigation are state officials and not subject to suit under 1983.
The appellate court in Pierce reaffirmed that a “state officer” -- in this case the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department -- is not liable to suit under Section 1983 because as a state officer, he or she represents the “sovereign” (state). However, a deputy acting in his personal capacity is a “person” and subject to suit under 1983. In those cases, such a defendant may assert “qualified immunity” based on a good faith belief that his actions were constitutionally permissible.
Consistent with this holding, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in dismissing Pierce’s claim against the individual deputies. The case was remanded for a determination whether Pierce sufficiently stated a claim that the officers were acting in a personal capacity at the time of the alleged conduct and whether they had qualified immunity.
