Rogers v. Humphreys County, Mississippi et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 10/15/2009. (rmw, USDC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION CHRISTOPHER JAMES ROGERS V. HUMPHREY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, HUMPHREYS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF WAYNE HOLLOWAY, OFFICIALLY AND IN HIS INDIVIDUALLY CAPACITY, DEPUTY RONNIE BUCHANAN, OFFICIALLY AND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND OTHER UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS "A"-"Z" PLAINTIFF NO. 4:09-CV-037

DEFENDANTS

ORDER This cause comes before the court on the motion of the Humphreys County Sheriff Department, seeking dismissal from this action on the grounds that it is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued. This is merely the latest motion addressing the arguably inconsistent authority relating to the proper defendant in federal cases involving Mississippi sheriff departments. In Porter v. Lowndes County, Mississippi, 406 F. Supp. 2d 708 (N.D. Miss. 2005), this court noted that dicta in a 2001 Fifth Circuit decision appears to erroneously characterize a sheriff department as a "separate government entity" capable of being sued, see Oden v. Oktibbeha County, Miss., 246 F.3d 458, 464 n. 3 (5th Cir. 2001), but there seems to be general consensus that such is not the case. The Fifth Circuit in Oden also suggested that the sheriff in his official capacity, rather than the county, was the proper defendant in Title VII cases, writing as follows: Sheriff Bryan was solely responsible for hiring, promoting, and establishing the deputies' wages. The County's only responsibility was to approve the Sheriff's budget and allocate the necessary funds. Because Sheriff Bryan was the elected official who made all decisions concerning promotions within the Sheriff's 1

Department, he was Deputy Oden's employer for purposes of Title VII. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment against Oktibbeha County and Sheriff Dolph Bryan individually under Title VII. Oden, 246 F.3d at 465. This court has applied Oden as written in Title VII cases, see, e.g. Westmoreland v. Calhoun County, No. 3:08cv135 [30-1] (N.D. Miss. 2009), even though it is unclear whether the Fifth Circuit would re-affirm Oden today. Porter was, like this case, a § 1983 action, and all parties in Porter conceded that the County, rather than the "Sheriff's Department," was the proper defendant in that case. Similarly, the plaintiff in this case has not opposed the motion of the Humphreys County Sheriff Department for dismissal, and it does appear that this issue is largely one of form which is not worthy of heated litigation. The parties appear to agree that Humphreys County is the proper defendant in this case, and, pending clarification otherwise from the Fifth Circuit, this court will likewise assume that this is the case. It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss filed by the Humphreys County Sheriff's Department is granted. So ordered, this the 15th day of October, 2009. /s/ Michael P. Mills CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

2