Meade v. Dermott, City of et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss separate deft Dermott Police Department. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 12/12/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

SYLVIA MEADE
Plaintiff
V.
CITY OF DERMOTT, ARKANSAS,
ET AL.
Defendants

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NO: 5:12CV00315 SWW

ORDER
Sylvia Meade brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Defendants
violated her constitutional rights. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss by Separate Defendant
Dermott Police Department (docket entries #9, #10). The time for responding has passed, and
Plaintiff has not filed a response. After careful consideration, and for reasons that follow, the
motion to dismiss will be granted and Separate Defendant Dermott Police Department will be
dismissed as a party to this action.
The Dermott Police Department moves for dismissal on the ground that it is not an entity
subject to suit. The capacity to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the state in which the
district court is held. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Under Arkansas law, political subdivisions,
including cities, are empowered to sue and be sued, see Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-101, but police
departments are merely divisions or departments of political subdivisions, without the capacity
to sue or be sued. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 81 (8th
Cir.1992)(“The West Memphis Police Department and West Memphis Paramedic Services are

not juridical entities suable as such. They are simply departments or subdivisions of the City
government.”).
The Court agrees that the Dermott Police Department is not subject to suit and must be
dismissed as a party to this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (docket entry #9)
is GRANTED. Separate Defendant Dermott Police Department is dismissed as a party to this
action.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012.

/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2