B. Potential Defendants

• Library: South Carolina Damages (SCBar) (2009 Ed.)

B. Potential Defendants

Because section 1983 on its face provides redress only for constitutional deprivations effected "under color of [a] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State" (that is, "under color of state law"⁴), the defendants in section 1983 actions will ordinarily be governmental entities and/or governmental officials.⁵

As a consequence, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution,⁶ which limits the relief available in federal court from a state, looms large in section 1983 jurisprudence. Who is named a defendant—whether an individual or a governmental entity—and in what "capacity"—individual or official—often determines what, if any, relief a plaintiff can recover. In particular, the Eleventh Amendment significantly restricts when money damages may be recovered by a plaintiff.

In Hans v. Louisiana⁷the United States Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment protects a state from being sued in federal court by its own citizens as well as by those of other states. The Court relaxed the state's blanket sovereign immunity in Ex parte Young, holding that a state official who enforces an unconstitutional statute is "stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct" so that "[t]he state has no power to impart any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."⁸ These two decisions have given rise to an extensive, and complex, body of Eleventh Amendment law. The basic rules are set out below.

1. States

States and state agencies are immune from all section 1983 lawsuits brought in federal court.⁹ This immunity extends as well to any governmental entity that can be characterized as an "arm of the State."¹⁰ Thus, when a state, state agency or arm of the state is a named defendant, the entity is entitled to dismissal.¹¹

2. Official and Individual Capacities

In order to know whom to sue for what relief, it is important to understand the "capacity" in which a defendant may be sued. A government official may be sued in either his "official" or his "individual" (also called "personal") capacity.¹² A suit against an official in his official capacity is tantamount to a suit against the governmental entity he represents, such as a state, a state agency, a county, a municipality or any other governmental body. Thus, an official can be held liable in his official capacity only if the entity can be held liable, as for example when he violates an individual's constitutional right pursuant to a statute or ordinance or an established governmental policy or custom.¹³ Similarly, relief sought from a defendant in his official capacity—whether monetary or injunctive—is enforceable against the entity, not against the individual. An individual capacity suit, in contrast, is against a government official or employee for his own conduct as that official or employee and relief granted in the defendant's individual capacity is enforceable against the individual and not against the entity. As a practical matter, an official is often sued in both his individual and his official capacities if a colorable claim can be alleged in each capacity because liability is often easier to establish in the individual capacity while damages are generally easier to recover from the governmental entity. In South Carolina, as elsewhere, a section 1983 individual capacity damages' award against governmental officials is routinely paid from the state insurance fund, which protects government employees from "tort liability arising in the course of their employment."¹⁴

3. State Officials

Because a suit against a state official in his official capacity is tantamount to a suit against the state, the Eleventh Amendment shields an official sued in his official capacity.¹⁵This immunity, however, is limited to damages liability¹⁶ and does not extend to liability for prospective injunctive relief, such as enjoining enforcement of an unconstitutional statute,¹⁷ even though the state may incur costs in effecting the injunctive relief.¹⁸ Nonetheless, the Eleventh Amendment does bar suit in federal court for retroactive injunctive relief against state officials if it is the equivalent of money damages against the state,¹⁹ including suits for a declaration regarding the state's past violations of federal law.²⁰ In addition, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit for any kind of relief (even prospective injunctive relief) under a pendent claim for violation of state law.²¹

4. Local Governmental Entities and Officials

In Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Services²²the Supreme Court, overruling its own precedent, held that the "Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies."²³ Thus, the Court concluded, Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar suits against local governments or against their local officials sued in their official capacities.²⁴ The Court has also held that state sovereign immunity laws do not shield a local governmental entity from section 1983 liability in state court, at least if the entity is amenable to suit in the state courts on state law claims.²⁵ Since Monell, local entities (notably cities and counties), and their officials sued in their official capacities, have been liable for all manner of relief recoverable under section 1983, including money damages. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against an ostensibly local entity if necessary "to protect the state treasury from liability that would have had essentially the same practical consequences as a judgment against the State itself."²⁶

5. "State" vs. "Local" Status

Whether an entity or official sued in his official capacity is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from money damages turns on whether the entity is characterized as "local"...