Wilbur Veasy v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County

Filing

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

Case: 16-11343

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11343
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:15-cv-80486-BB

WILBUR VEASY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY,
Ric L Bradshaw,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 12, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11343

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 2 of 2

The question presented in this case is whether a Florida sheriff who has been
designated as a chief correctional officer by his county, like defendant Ric
Bradshaw, is a state actor entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity when hiring
and firing his deputies, like plaintiff Wilbur Veasy. After this appeal was filed and
briefs were submitted, a panel of this Court concluded that a Florida sheriff is not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in that context. Stanley v. Broward
Cnty. Sheriff, No. 15-13961, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 7229745 (11th Cir. Dec. 14,
2016). We are bound by that holding and, as a result, we reverse the district
court’s decision to the contrary in this case. See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d
1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all
subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of
abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.”).
The judgment of the district court concluding that the defendant is entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity is therefore REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED for further proceedings in light of this Court’s opinion in Stanley. 1

1

We do not express any opinion as to the merits of Veasy’s claims. Although Bradshaw
moved for summary judgment on the merits in the district court in addition to moving for
summary judgment on Eleventh Amendment grounds, the district court addressed only his
entitlement to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Moreover, Bradshaw’s brief to this Court
addresses only Eleventh Amendment immunity. We leave it to the district court to decide in the
first instance whether Bradshaw is entitled to summary judgment on the merits.
2