Jeffrey Stanley v. Brownward County Sheriff

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jeffrey Stanley. Decision: Reversed and Remanded. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Signed. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 1 of 25

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13961
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-62406-WJZ

JEFFREY STANLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF,
Scott Israel, in his official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 14, 2016)
Before MARCUS and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, * Judge.

*

Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge for the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 2 of 25

MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
Florida law requires the counties of the state to designate a chief correctional
officer (CCO), but it gives counties broad discretion to decide who that officer may
be. Thus, for example, a county may (but need not) choose to designate its sheriff
as its CCO, so long as it selects someone for that position. The sheriff as CCO
may then hire and fire deputies to assist him with his responsibilities, and he may
therefore face liability for personnel decisions that violate an employee’s
constitutional rights. However, if the sheriff was acting as an arm of the state, he
will be immune from suit in federal court on account of the Eleventh Amendment.
Whether a sheriff acts as an arm of the state is a function-specific determination
that is based heavily on a detailed analysis of state law, and is often a difficult
question, as it is here.
This case arises from the Broward County Sheriff’s potential liability under
§ 1983 for failing to rehire a former deputy allegedly due to his political loyalties
and in violation of his First Amendment rights. Broward County has expressly
designated its sheriff as its CCO; thus, at issue in this case is the basic question
whether a Florida county sheriff, acting in his capacity as chief correctional officer
in the hiring and firing of his deputies, is an arm of the state entitled to the benefit

2

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 3 of 25

of the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. After
careful review, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that a Florida
sheriff is not an arm of the state when acting in this capacity. We, therefore,
reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Sheriff and remand
to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
The plaintiff, Jeffrey Stanley, worked for the Broward County Sherriff’s
Office (BSO) as a cross-certified detention deputy -- a deputy sheriff who is also
certified to partake in specific law enforcement duties such as maintaining
perimeter posts and transporting certain prisoners. Stanley worked for the BSO for
six years before voluntarily resigning in December 2007 to take a position as
director of security at a new hospital in Miami Beach. The hospital was scheduled
to open in January 2008, but it failed to open as planned, and, in May 2008,
Stanley applied to be rehired at his same position with the BSO.
When a former employee is rehired, BSO policy sets his pay grade lower
than it was at the time he left. This policy was apparently designed to deter law
enforcement officers from moving to other law enforcement agencies and then
returning if they failed their training or certification requirements. Stanley found
out about this policy upon reapplication, but he believed that the policy should not
have applied to him since he did not leave BSO for a different law enforcement
3

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 4 of 25

agency. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the policy and contacted union
representatives, BSO Human Resources, and then-Sheriff Al Lamberti himself to
voice his concerns. Nonetheless, Stanley was extended and then accepted a
conditional offer of employment as a detention deputy at the lower pay grade on
September 25, 2008. This offer was contingent on successful mental and physical
evaluations and a final review of his file.
At the time of Stanley’s application for rehire, Sheriff Lamberti was running
for reelection against his political adversary, Scott Israel. The Federation of Public
and Private Employees, Stanley’s union, chose to endorse Israel. Stanley openly
supported Israel’s campaign, allegedly due in part to his disappointment with the
rehire pay policy. Stanley attended an informal union picket in front of the BSO
with approximately five hundred union members while wearing a “Cops for Israel”
t-shirt. Later that evening, he attended a televised debate between Lamberti and
Israel while wearing a different “Cops for Israel” t-shirt. At both events, BSO
photographers took pictures of the attendees; Stanley appeared in some of these
photographs. Stanley also volunteered for the Israel campaign in the weeks
leading up to the election.
Lamberti was reelected on November 4, 2008. On December 4, 2008,
Stanley spoke with his former supervisor to inform her that he had satisfied his end
of the conditions of his employment offer. Later that day, Stanley received a
4

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 5 of 25

phone call from then-Lieutenant David Benjamin, Lamberti’s executive officer,
informing him that BSO was not going to rehire him because they had seen
photographs of Stanley wearing a t-shirt in support of Israel. Stanley testified that
during this conversation, Benjamin told him “that the sheriff stated that since
[Stanley] didn’t support him, he was not going to support [Stanley] in rehiring
him.” The decision was made final in a letter from BSO dated December 8, 2008,
which rescinded Stanley’s employment offer because “areas of concern arose
during the selection process.”
Stanley filed a formal complaint against BSO with the Public Employees
Relations Commission on May 7, 2009; the hearing officer found for Stanley. That
decision was later reversed by Florida’s First District Court of Appeals. See Sheriff
of Broward Cty. v. Stanley, 50 So. 3d 640 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010). Stanley then
commenced this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida against Lamberti in his official capacity, alleging violations of his First
Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Meanwhile, Israel again challenged Lamberti at the ballot box in 2012, and
this time he won; he took office in January 2013. In August 2013, Stanley’s
complaint survived a motion to dismiss. On September 9, 2013, Stanley substituted
Sheriff Israel as the defendant because Lamberti had been sued in his official
capacity and was no longer Sheriff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Following
5

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 6 of 25

discovery, BSO’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The case then
proceeded to trial; a jury was selected on January 14, 2015, and the trial was
scheduled to begin the next day. However, on January 13, 2015, this Court issued
an opinion in Pellitteri v. Prine, 776 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2015), which held that a
Georgia sheriff is an “arm of the State” for Eleventh Amendment purposes when
exercising his power to hire and fire deputies. Id. at 779. BSO first learned about
this holding on the evening of January 14, and it brought the case to the district
court’s attention on the morning of January 15. The court postponed the trial and
ordered additional briefing regarding the question of Eleventh Amendment
immunity in light of Pellitteri. After this briefing, BSO again moved for summary
judgment. The court granted BSO’s motion on September 1, 2015, and Stanley
appealed that decision.
Stanley’s complaint originally included five prayers for relief: (1) a
declaratory judgment that Lamberti’s actions violated Stanley’s First Amendment
rights; (2) an injunction against Lamberti, his successors, or his coworkers from
retaliating against Stanley; (3) damages against Lamberti in his official capacity;
(4) costs and fees against Lamberti in his official capacity; and (5) other relief as is
just. Stanley later conceded that the third item, damages in Lamberti’s official
capacity, was a “typographical-error relic” from before the decision to sue

6

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 7 of 25

Lamberti in only his official capacity, and he withdrew that claim. Thus, his
remaining claims are for declaratory and injunctive relief, plus costs and fees.
II.
“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
all of the facts in the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant.”
Haynes v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 793 F.3d 1246, 1249 (11th Cir. 2015)
(quotations omitted). Summary judgment is proper if “there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). District court decisions regarding Eleventh Amendment
immunity are also reviewed de novo. See Pellitteri, 776 F.3d at 779.
A.
The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution protects states from being
subjected to suit in federal court. The Amendment provides:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to
any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any
Foreign State.
U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme Court has extended this protection to also
bar suits against a state in federal court brought by the state’s own citizens. See
generally Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890). However, “the Eleventh
Amendment does not immunize municipalities from suit.” Abusaid v.
Hillsborough Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 405 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005); see
7

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 8 of 25

also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.54 (1978)
(noting the absence of “any basis for concluding that the Eleventh Amendment is a
bar to municipal liability”). An officer, therefore, is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity if he is acting as an arm of the state but not if he is acting as
an arm of the county.
The Supreme Court has clarified that in making an arm-of-the-state
determination, the question is not whether the officer acts for the state or the
county “in some categorical, ‘all or nothing’ manner.” McMillian v. Monroe Cty.,
Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997). Rather, we “ask whether governmental officials
are final policymakers for the local government in a particular area, or on a
particular issue.” Id. The result is a function-specific determination -- “we are not
seeking to make a characterization of [ ] sheriffs that will hold true for every type
of official action they engage in.” Id.
Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in McMillian, this Court adopted a
function-specific approach to the arm-of-the-state analysis. See Manders v. Lee,
338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Whether a defendant is an ‘arm
of the State’ must be assessed in light of the particular function in which the
defendant was engaged when taking the actions out of which liability is asserted to
rise.”). Manders solidified a four-factor test to be used in making such
determinations: “(1) how state law defines the entity; (2) what degree of control the
8

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 9 of 25

State maintains over the entity; (3) where the entity derives its funds; and (4) who
is responsible for judgments against the entity.” Id. at 1309. These factors are
evaluated in light of the specific function at issue. Id. at 1308.
We have never addressed the precise question at issue in this case, but a trio
of cases -- Manders, Abusaid, and Pellitteri -- bears heavily on our decision.
Because the analysis in each case is peculiarly dependent on facts and on state law,
we detail these precedents at some length.
Although it addressed neither the function nor the state law at issue today,
Manders is important because it established the four-factor test in light of the
Supreme Court’s decision in McMillian. Manders involved a determination of
whether a Georgia sheriff was acting as an arm of the state in establishing a use-offorce policy at a jail and training his deputies accordingly. Manders, 338 F.3d at
1305–06. In concluding that the sheriff was an arm of the state, the Manders Court
first emphasized that Georgia’s sheriffs are defined as separate constitutional
offices independent from their counties and that “counties delegate no power or
authority to sheriffs.” Id. at 1319. Specifically, “[t]he sheriff’s authority to use
force . . . and the sheriff’s obligation to administer the jail are directly derived from
the State and not delegated through the county entity.” Id. Second, there was a
high degree of state control because Georgia required annual specialized training
of sheriffs in all counties, and we found it “reasonable to assume that such training
9

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 10 of 25

includes instruction on force policy.” Id. at 1320. In contrast, the counties had “no
authority, control over, or involvement in” the sheriff’s force policy at the jail. Id.
at 1322. Third, although the county bore “the major burden of funding [the
sheriff’s] office and the jail,” this characteristic was not dispositive because the
state had mandated that structure and because the state funded sheriffs’ training
programs. Id. at 1323. The fourth and final factor -- the payment of adverse
judgments -- was not clearly in favor of either side. But with three of the four
factors pointing decidedly toward immunity, the Court concluded that, “at a
minimum, the liability-for-adverse-judgment factor [did] not defeat” the Sheriff’s
immunity claim. Id. at 1328.
Manders is informative but not dispositive in this case because it addressed a
Georgia sheriff. Given the weight of state law in this analysis, cases involving
Florida sheriffs are more instructive. See Manders, 338 F.3d at 1309 n.10
(“[S]tates have extremely wide latitude in determining their forms of government
and how state functions are performed.”); McMillian, 520 U.S. at 786 (“[O]ur
understanding of the actual function of a governmental official, in a particular area,
will necessarily be dependent on the definition of the official’s functions under
relevant state law.”). In Hufford v. Rodgers, 912 F.2d 1338 (11th Cir. 1990), a
panel of this Court held that “the Eleventh Amendment does not protect Florida
sheriffs from liability under section 1983.” Id. at 1342. Cases involving Florida
10

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 11 of 25

sheriffs after Hufford have uniformly followed that decision and have entertained
§ 1983 suits against sheriffs in various situations. See, e.g., Hutton v. Strickland,
919 F.2d 1531, 1542 (11th Cir. 1990) (repossessing property); Ortega v. Schramm,
922 F.2d 684, 694 (11th Cir. 1991) (searching and arresting); Rivas v. Freeman,
940 F.2d 1491, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) (arresting and detaining suspects); Schmelz
v. Monroe Cty., 954 F.2d 1540, 1543 (11th Cir. 1992) (supervising inmates);
Edwards v. Okaloosa Cty., 5 F.3d 1431, 1432 (11th Cir. 1993) (supervising
inmates); Gordan v. Cochran, 116 F.3d 1438, 1439 n.1 (11th Cir. 1997)
(discharging administrative employees). 1
Hufford and its pre-Manders progeny did not undertake the function-byfunction analysis mandated by McMillian and Manders. This Court’s lone postManders case addressing Florida sheriffs is Abusaid, which determined that a
Florida county sheriff does not act as an arm of the state when enforcing a county
ordinance. Abusaid, 405 F.3d at 1304. The Court marched through the Manders
factors, starting with the state law definition: Florida’s constitution labels sheriffs
“county officers” and “expressly authorizes counties to abolish the office of the
sheriff altogether.” Id. at 1305 (citing Fla. Const. art. VIII, § 1(d)). The degree-of-

1

In Gordon, former employees of the Broward County Sheriff’s office brought a § 1983 action
against the sheriff, alleging that they were discharged by the new sheriff because they had
opposed his candidacy. Gordon, 116 F.3d at 1439. However, the analysis in that case focused
on whether political loyalty was an appropriate requirement for the plaintiffs’ various jobs. See
id. at 1440–41. Gordon ultimately offers us little help in this case, despite its factual similarities.
11

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 12 of 25

control factor, while “arguably mixed,” weighed against immunity because
individual counties had “substantial discretion over how to utilize” the sheriff. Id.
at 1306. In this particular case, the Sheriff was acting “pursuant to [an] express
grant of authority by the County” and “acting on behalf of the County” to enforce
its ordinance. Id. at 1310. The source of funds also weighed against immunity
because even some residual state control left “unaltered the fundamental fact that
the sheriffs’ funds are derived entirely from their respective counties.” Id. at 1311.
Finally, the Court concluded that the adverse-judgment factor also weighed against
immunity, because no state statute provided funds for payment but “counties
certainly may be—and have been—held liable for a judgment against a sheriff.”
Id. at 1313.
Abusaid did not address the function at issue in this case -- the hiring and
firing of deputies while acting in the capacity of chief correctional officer. The
closest we have come to addressing that precise function is in Pellitteri. In that
case, this Court determined that a Georgia sheriff acts as an arm of the state when
hiring and firing his deputies. Pellitteri, 776 F.3d at 778. As for the first factor,
the Court emphasized that “sheriffs in Georgia derive their power and duties from
the State, are controlled by the State, and counties cannot, and do not, delegate any
law enforcement power or duties to sheriffs.” Id. at 780 (quoting Manders, 338
F.3d at 1313). Specifically, “the authority of sheriffs to employ personnel is also
12

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 13 of 25

derived from the State.” Id. The state maintained control over hiring and firing by
regulating the certification process for peace officers, disciplining peace officers
for misconduct, and giving the Governor broad investigative and suspension
powers. See id. at 781. Any deputies hired would “assist [sheriffs] in executing
their own duties, which have been delegated to them by the State.” Id. at 782.
Funding was also controlled by the state because state law required counties to set
budgets for their sheriffs. See id. While the adverse-judgment factor “weigh[ed]
in favor of denying immunity,” it was outweighed by the first three factors and
immunity was proper. Id. at 783.
B.
With these cases in mind, we apply the Manders analysis to a Florida
sheriff acting in his capacity as Chief Correctional Officer (CCO) in the hiring and
firing of deputies. Because the overall weight of the factors tips on the side of
county status, we conclude that a Florida sheriff acting in this capacity is not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
1.
Again, the first factor -- how state law defines the entity -- weighs toward
county status. Notably, state law defines sheriffs as county officers, and it gives
counties the discretion to choose their CCOs. These characteristics are indicative
of county status, and the district court’s opposite conclusion was due in part to its
13

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 14 of 25

reliance on Pellitteri. The Florida constitution names the sheriff as one of several
“county officers,” and provides that a county is free to abolish any county office,
including the sheriff’s office, as long as those duties are assigned to another officer.
See Fla. Const. art. VIII, § 1(d). As we have previously concluded, this definition
“weighs heavily against assigning arm of the state status to a Florida sheriff.”
Abusaid, 405 F.3d at 1305.
State law creates the position of CCO and requires county commissioners to
“designate a chief correctional officer and such correctional officers as they deem
necessary.” Fla. Stat. § 951.06(1). The Florida constitution does not define “chief
correctional officer.” “Correctional officer” is statutorily defined as “any person
who is appointed or employed full time by the state or any political subdivision
thereof, . . . whose primary responsibility is the supervision, protection, care,
custody, and control, or investigation, of inmates within a correctional institution.”
Id. at § 943.10(2). The CCO’s responsibilities are statutorily defined: he “shall see
that all rules and regulations prescribed by law or the department are fully
observed and complied with; enforce discipline among the prisoners in and about
the camps; and administer punishment to prisoners.” Id. at § 951.06(2).
Importantly, a county may, but need not, choose to designate its sheriff as its CCO
in satisfaction of § 951.06, so long as it selects someone for that position. See id.
at § 951.061(1). This was not the case until § 951.061 was enacted in 1986; before
14

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 15 of 25

then, Florida sheriffs had “no inherent or constitutional duty to maintain a county
jail.” Feldman v. Brescher, 561 So. 2d 1271, 1272–73 & n.3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1990). Thus, the county may designate its sheriff the CCO if he is to have those
responsibilities at all.
Broward County has enacted an ordinance designating the Broward County
Sheriff as the CCO of the Broward County Correctional System. See Broward Cty.
Ord. § 18-01(a). That County ordinance instructs the Sheriff, as CCO, to
(1) “appoint such officers as he deems necessary . . . to perform the duties of chief
correctional officer”; (2) “enforce all existing state laws, administrative rules of the
Florida Department of Corrections, and rules of the Broward County
Administrative Code, concerning the operation and maintenance of county jails”;
and (3) “include salaries for county correctional officers in his proposed budget of
expenditures.” Id. at § 18-01(b). The Broward County Administrative Code
specifies that “[t]he Sheriff, as the Chief Correctional Officer, is solely responsible
for the operation of the existing correctional System.” Broward Cty. Admin. Code
§ 18.40(a). The Sheriff exercises this responsibility solely because Broward County
designated him as its CCO.
The district court construed the county’s ability to choose its CCO as a
characteristic favoring immunity because the state created the CCO position and
charged the CCO with enforcing state laws. This conclusion was based on its
15

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 16 of 25

reading of Pellitteri. But we think there are two powerful differences between
Florida’s and Georgia’s laws. First, the Florida constitution leaves with the county
the choice of whether to have a sheriff’s office at all, while the Georgia
constitution does not. Compare Fla. Const. art. VIII, § 1(d) (“[A]ny county office
may be abolished when all the duties of the office prescribed by general law are
transferred to another office.”), with Ga. Const. art. IX, § 1, ¶ III (providing for the
election, terms, and salaries of county officers but not discussing the ability to
abolish the sheriff’s office). Second, Georgia does not have a separate position
equivalent to CCO. While Georgia statutes occasionally refer to the “chief law
enforcement officer” of a county, that term is nowhere defined in state law.
Georgia sheriffs are, “[b]y virtue of their offices,” the jailers of their counties and
have the authority to appoint other jailers. Ga. Code Ann. § 42-4-1(a). In sharp
contrast, Florida creates a separate position of CCO that is responsible for
overseeing county jails. See Fla. Stat. § 951.06. Florida then gives to the county
the additional choice whether to assign that position to a person who functions
solely as the CCO, to the sheriff pursuant to § 951.061, or even to a private entity
under § 951.062. Only if the county designates the sheriff as CCO is he tasked
with the responsibility of running the county’s correctional facilities. Thus,
Florida’s laws (unlike Georgia’s) define the CCO role in a way that affords great

16

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 17 of 25

discretion to the counties, and this weighs heavily against Eleventh Amendment
immunity.
2.
The second Manders factor -- degree of state control -- presents a closer call.
While sheriffs may appoint deputies free from state or county interference, the
state sets minimum hiring qualifications that deputies must satisfy. This is a strong
indicia of state control, and our recent opinion in Pellitteri addressed a similar
situation in Georgia and reached the same conclusion. In this case, however, we
find this power counterbalanced by a county’s unilateral ability to designate its
CCO and by a county’s involvement in the removal of deputies.
Of importance in this case is the sheriff’s capacity as CCO. The state exerts
some control over the various capacities in which a sheriff acts by codifying a set
of responsibilities in Fla. Stat. § 30.15. But, as we noted in Abusaid, “this list does
not alter the ability of a county to assign its sheriff whatever additional duties it
sees fit”; and “many of the functions assigned to the sheriff are carried out either at
the sole discretion of the county or on behalf of the county.” Abusaid, 405 F.3d at
1309–10. And as we have noted, Florida sheriffs receive those responsibilities only
if the county makes the designation; control over that critical decision is vested
solely in the county.

17

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 18 of 25

An examination of control over the hiring and firing of the CCO’s deputies
is more mixed. Florida’s sheriffs have the power to appoint deputies as they wish.
See Fla. Stat. § 30.07. The sheriffs’ decisions in this regard are protected from
state or county interference by statute: “The independence of the sheriffs shall be
preserved concerning the purchase of supplies and equipment, selection of
personnel, and [ ] hiring, firing, and setting of salaries of such personnel.” Id. at
§ 30.53. This independence extends to sheriffs acting in their capacity as CCO,
because state law allows a sheriff as CCO to “appoint such officers as he or she
deems necessary.” Id. at § 951.061(1). A sheriff acting as CCO can thus appoint
deputies without state or county interference.
State law gives the Governor some control over removal of the sheriff: he
may suspend county officers “for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty,
drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or
commission of a felony.” Fla. Const. art. IV, § 7(a). However, the state has little
involvement in the removal of deputies, be they deputy sheriffs or deputy
correctional officers. The state allows sheriffs to remove deputies with written
notice, see Fla. Stat. § 30.073(3), and state law lists one instance in which the
county must remove a misbehaving correctional officer. See id. at § 951.06(3)
(“All boards of county commissioners shall immediately discharge any
correctional officer who shall be guilty of gross negligence or cruel and inhuman
18

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 19 of 25

treatment of prisoners under their control.”). These provisions leave the counties
free to implement additional removal procedures, as Broward County has done. In
fact, Broward County’s removal ordinance is more detailed than the state statutes:
it allows the county sheriff to remove full-time deputy sheriffs of rank lieutenant
and below for cause after notice and a hearing, while other employees are
removable at will. See Broward Cty. Ord. § 18-6(b)(2), (d)(2)–(3). Although a
county’s removal decisions have to be reported to the state, see Fla. Stat.
§ 943.139(2), merely reporting such decisions does not automatically impose state
control over the decision.
The strongest indicia of state control over personnel decisions is found in
state law that requires sheriffs and their deputies to meet certain statutory
qualifications and baseline requirements before they may be hired. See id. at
§§ 30.073, 943.13. Florida created the Criminal Justice Standards and Training
Commission (CJSTC) to monitor compliance with those standards and to govern
the training and certification of correctional officers. See id. at §§ 943.11, 943.12.2
Counties have no control over the CJSTC’s actions, but they are free to impose
additional or more-stringent requirements on top of the statutory minimums. See
2

The CJSTC has nineteen members, including three state officers (Secretary of
Corrections, Attorney General, and Director of the Division of Florida Highway Patrol) and
sixteen members appointed by the Governor. Fla. Stat. § 943.11(1)(a). Each of the sixteen
members appointed by the Governor is “accountable to the Governor for the proper performance
of the duties of his or her office” and is removable by the Governor for “malfeasance,
misfeasance, neglect of duty, incompetence, or permanent inability to perform official duties,” or
for pleading guilty to or being found guilty of a felony. Id. at § 943.11(1)(d).
19

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 20 of 25

id. at § 943.137(1). If a county sets higher standards, the CJSTC will recognize
and uphold those standards. See id. at § 943.137(2).
In Pellitteri, a structure like the one Florida has devised with the CJSTC was
treated as a strong indication of state control. The Georgia legislature created a
similar committee -- the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council -- and set
similar minimum qualifications. See Ga. Code Ann. §§ 35-8-3, 35-8-7.1. The
Pellitteri panel concluded that “[t]hese threshold requirements for serving as a
peace officer in Georgia significantly limit a sheriff’s discretion when hiring
potential deputies.” Pellitteri, 776 F.3d at 781. We agree that the state exerts
greater power than the county in this regard.
While this factor is close, we conclude that it ultimately weighs toward
county status and against immunity. Of primary importance is the fact that in
Florida, the county controls whether the sheriff will act as CCO at all or whether
those responsibilities will be assigned elsewhere. This characteristic, along with a
county’s ability to regulate the removal of deputies, sufficiently counterbalances
the state-controlled nature of the CJSTC.
3.
The third factor -- the source of funding -- also points toward county status.
The fact that a sheriff’s budget is funded entirely by the county, even when he acts

20

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 21 of 25

as CCO, is a strong indicator of county control that is not outweighed by the fact
that the state maintains some control over the budget review process.
While state law sets sheriffs’ salaries and requires that sheriffs’ budgets
include their deputies’ salaries, see Fla. Stat. §§ 30.49(4), 145.071, this Court has
previously found “nothing in Florida law to suggest that the state contributes any
money at all to its sheriffs.” Abusaid, 405 F.3d at 1310. The sheriff is “financially
accountable to his county and only to his county, since he must pay any money his
office earns into the county treasury.” Id. at 1312. The sheriff’s budget must be
approved by the county, and the salaries of correctional officers are funded from
the general revenue of the county. See Fla. Stat. §§ 30.49, 951.06(5); Broward
Cty. Ord. § 18-01(c). And while the sheriff’s salary is set by state legislature,
correctional officers’ salaries are fixed by the board of county commissioners.
Compare Fla. Stat. § 145.071, with id. at § 951.06(4).
Even more telling is the fact that the decision to designate the sheriff as
CCO rests solely within the county’s discretion. If the county does not want to
provide its sheriff with extra funds to fulfill the obligations of CCO, it can choose
to designate a private entity as its CCO. See id. at § 951.062(1). That entity would
enter into a contract with the county for the operation and maintenance of county
jails, the terms of which would be determined by contract between the county and
the entity without state involvement. See id. at § 951.062(1)–(2). Perhaps
21

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 22 of 25

recognizing that sheriffs are good candidates for CCO, the state legislature has
merely simplified the budget process for sheriffs who are so designated and has
allowed them to submit one budget instead of two.
The state does, however, retain some control over how a sheriff spends its
funds, but that is not enough to tip the scale. State law requires sheriffs who are
also CCOs to include their deputies’ salaries in their county budgets, see id. at
§ 951.061(3), but, again, county revenue is the actual source of the funding. More
salient is the state’s involvement in the budget review process. The sheriff is
required to submit a proposed budget to the board of county commissioners each
year, id. at § 30.49(1), and the commissioners “may amend, modify, increase, or
reduce any or all items” in the proposed budget and must approve the final budget.
Id. at § 30.49(4). But if the sheriff disagrees with the commissioners’ actions, he
may appeal to the Administration Commission -- composed of the Governor and
the members of his Cabinet, id. at § 14.202 -- by filing a petition with the
Executive Office of the Governor. Id. at § 30.49(4)(a). The Administration
Commission’s decision is final, and the county may not alter it except on request of
the sheriff. Id. at § 30.49(5), (8).
The Pellitteri panel relied on this review process in concluding that the
funding factor is indicative of arm-of-the-state status. The district court agreed
with that conclusion, in part because it understood Pellitteri as shifting the third22

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 23 of 25

prong analysis from the source of funds to the degree of control the state maintains
over how the entity spends its funds. See Pellitteri, 776 F.3d at 782 (“[A]lthough
each county sets the total budget for the sheriff’s office, it cannot dictate how the
sheriff spends those funds.”). In Abusaid, however, we suggested that control over
budgeting is more properly considered under the second prong. See Abusaid, 405
F.3d at 1311. But “even if state control over the budgeting process were the proper
inquiry, this third factor would still weigh against arm of the state status” for
Florida sheriffs. Id. at 1312. This conclusion is even stronger, we think, for a
sheriff acting as CCO, because the county determines whether the sheriff will act
in that capacity at all and sets correctional officers’ salaries. The third factor thus
weighs against arm-of-the-state status.
4.
The final factor -- responsibility for adverse judgments -- also weighs
against immunity, as BSO conceded in its motion for summary judgment on the
Eleventh Amendment question. D.E. 145 at 6 (“The Broward Sheriff concedes
that as in Pellitteri, the fourth Manders factor . . . does not weigh in favor of BSO’s
argument of Eleventh Amendment immunity.”). This point was again conceded on
appeal. Appellee’s Brief at 25 (“BSO concedes that the fourth Manders factor . . .
does not weigh in favor of arm of the State status.”). It is enough for us to note
that “no provision of Florida law provides state funds to a Florida sheriff to satisfy
23

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 24 of 25

a judgment against the sheriff,” Hufford, 912 F.2d at 1342, and that “neither the
State nor the County will be required to directly pay for any adverse judgment
against the Sheriff’s office.” Pellitteri, 776 F.3d at 783; see also id. (“[T]o the
extent that the state treasury will be spared here from paying any adverse
judgment, this factor weighs in favor of denying immunity.”). But because the
issue is not contested here, the fourth factor can summarily be taken in favor of
county rather than state status.
While the issue of state or county control is a close question, and we
commend the district court for the care with which it undertook this analysis, we
conclude that the four Manders factors taken in concert ultimately indicate that a
Florida sheriff is not an arm of the state when he is acting in his capacity of CCO
in the hiring and firing of his deputies.
IV.
Stanley’s second claim is that even if BSO is an arm of the state, he was still
entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. However, in entering final judgment
for BSO, the district court did not address equitable relief. We, therefore, decline
to rule on that claim and instead remand the matter in the first instance to the
district court for a decision.3

3

The district court may also consider whether Stanley’s claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief are moot, since it is unclear on this record whether Stanley has requested reinstatement or
reapplied for his position.
24

Case: 15-13961

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Page: 25 of 25

State law impacts many aspects of a sheriff’s actions taken in his capacity of
CCO, including personnel decisions. But the designation of the sheriff as the CCO
is a decision that rests solely with the county. Broward County has made that
designation, and its sheriff performs his duties in this function because of the
county’s action. In light of our review of the Manders factors, the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of BSO is REVERSED and the case
REMANDED to the district court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

25