Kocak v. Feltner et al

Filing 19

Memorandum Opinion and Order Because dismissal is warranted, the Court grants Defendant Mahoning County Sheriff's Department's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7 ) in its entirety; and Defendants Mahoning County Sheriff, Randall A. Wellington and John/Jane Doe Deputies' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12 ) in part. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/13/2012. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ANDREW J. KOCAK, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES P. FELTNER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:11CV02734

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER (Resolving ECF No. 7, 12)

A county sheriff’s office is not a legal entity capable of being sued for purposes
of § 1983. See e.g., Yahnke v. Nixon, Case No. 1:10CV1470, 2010 WL 3420650 (N.D. Ohio
Aug. 27, 2010); Petty v. County of Franklin, Ohio, 478 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2007); Brett v.
Wallace,107 F.Supp.2d 949, 954 (S.D. Ohio 2000) (“[T]he Sheriff’s Office is not a proper legal
entity and, therefore, is not subject to suit or liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); Rhodes v.
McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120-21 (6th Cir.1991) (“The Sheriff’s Department is not a legal entity
subject to suit.”); Elkins v. Summit County, Ohio, Case No. 5:06CV3004, 2008 WL 622038
(N.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2008) (explaining in an action for a § 1983 violation and related state law
violations, the court recognized that administrative units of a local government, such as a
municipal police department, are not sui juris because they cannot be sued absent positive
statutory authority and Ohio does not have such a law.)
Based on the above-stated law, it is clear that neither Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
Andrew Kocak (“Kocak”) nor Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff James Feltner (“Feltner”) may
maintain the current action against the Sheriff’s Office. See ECF Nos. 1, 11. As such, Kocak

(4:11CV02734)
and Feltner cannot prove a set of facts against the Sheriff’s Office warranting relief.
Consequently, the Sheriff’s Office must be dismissed from this matter pursuant to Fed. Civ. R.
12(b)(6).
Because dismissal is warranted, the Court grants Defendant Mahoning County Sheriff’s
Department’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) in it’s entirety; and Defendants Mahoning County
Sheriff, Randall A. Wellington and John/Jane Doe Deputies’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) in
part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 13, 2012
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

2