Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-3496 Section "T"(2)
October 24, 2000
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of that part of the Court's August 4, 2000 Order and Reasons which dismissed defendant, William R. "Rut" Whittington, in his official capacity. The Plaintiffs are unopposed to this Motion for Reconsideration. The Court, having reviewed its earlier Order and Reasons, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. Issue of liability of defendant in his official capacity
A suit against a government official in his official capacity is treated as a suit against the entity. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996). Colonel Whittington is an officer of the Louisiana State Police, which is a state agency. Therefore, official capacity claims against him are treated as claims against the state.
Plaintiffs' constitutional claims would fail if asserted against the state because a state and its agencies are not "persons" under section 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 70, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989). In addition, the Eleventh Amendment bars litigants from suing a state in federal court, absent the state's consent, if the plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Hughes v. Swell, 902 F.2d 376, 377-78 (5th Cir. 1990), citing Penhurst State School Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908 (1984). The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in this action. Furthermore, Louisiana has expressly stated that "[n]o suit against the state or a state agency or a political subdivision shall be instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court." La. Rev. Stat. § 13:5106(A). Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars the plaintiffs from bringing their federal and state claims in federal court against the state of Louisiana, and thus against Colonel Whittington in his official capacity. All claims against Colonel Whittington in his official capacity are dismissed.
II. Clarification on the issue of liability of defendant in his personal capacity
Plaintiffs allege that Colonel Whittington is liable under section 1983 because he promulgated and/or allowed to exist policies and procedures that were the cause of the constitutional violations of which plaintiffs complain. Public officials are immune from section 1983 civil rights claims if "their conduct does not clearly violate established rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727 (1982); Streetman v. Jordan, 918 F.2d 555, 556 (5th Cir. 1990). For a police chief to be held liable under section 1983 there must be some connection between the chiefs action and the alleged constitutional violation. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 199 (5th Cir. 1996), citing Hinshaw v. Doffer, 785 F.2d 1260, 1263 (5th Cir. 1986). The plaintiff must prove that: (1) the police chief failed to supervise or train the officer, (2) a causal connection existed between the failure to supervise or train and the violation of the plaintiffs rights, and (3) such failure to supervise or train amounted to gross negligence or deliberate indifference. Id. A supervisory official is liable only if he or she: (1) affirmatively participated in acts that caused constitutional deprivation, or (2) implemented unconstitutional policies that causally resulted in plaintiffs injury. Id., citing Mouille v. City of Live Oak, Tex., 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir. 1992). As discussed in the original Order and Reasons, the allegations sufficiently plead a connection between Colonel Whittington's action and the alleged constitutional violations to state a claim under section 1983. Likewise, a reasonable person would know that failing to ensure the proper training and supervision of State Trooper Fitzpatrick and in failing to implement meaningful procedures to discourage lawless official conduct could lead to constitutional violations. Therefore, it is again the opinion of this Court that these allegations sufficiently plead a connection between Colonel Whittington's action/inaction and the alleged constitutional violations to state a claim under section 1983 in his personal capacity. As noted in the original Order, the plaintiffs will eventually have the burden of proving these deficiencies.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration filed on behalf of the defendant, William R. "Rut" Whittington, be and the same is hereby GRANTED and the defendant is dismissed from this lawsuit in his official capacity.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of October, 2000.