Summary
finding official-capacity claims for damages against Kentucky State Police trooper barred by Eleventh Amendment
Summary of this case from Jones v. Ky. State PoliceOpinion
Civil Action No. 1:05CV-137-M.
March 1, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Scott Hammond's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss the claims against him in his official capacity (Docket #17). This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
The complaint asserted against Defendant Scott Hammond ("Hammond") states claims against him in both his individual and official capacity. Hammond is a Trooper with the Kentucky State Police (KSP). KSP is a part of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and it is not only funded by the Kentucky General Assembly, but it also is run by the executive branch of the Commonwealth state government.STANDARD
"When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court must accept all of the allegations in the complaint as true, and construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff." Lawrence v. Chancery Court of Tenn., 188 F.3d 687, 691 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 377 (6th Cir. 1995)). Denial of the motion is proper "unless it can be established beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Achterhof v. Selvaggio, 886 F.2d 826, 831 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Nonetheless, unwarranted factual inferences or legal conclusions masquerading as fact will not prevent a motion to dismiss. Blakely v. United States, 276 F.3d 853, 863 (6th Cir. 2002). A "complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Andrews v. Ohio, 104 F.3d 803, 806 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing In re DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993)).
DISCUSSION
The United States Supreme Court, in Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police, a case arising from the Sixth Circuit, held that a "suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official, but rather a suit against the official's office." Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67 (1989). As such, a suit against a government agent in their official capacity equates to a suit against the government agency in question. In Ford Motor Co. v. Department of the Treasury, the US Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment prevents an award of money damages from a state treasury even if an individual officer is named as the defendant, and not the state. Ford Motor Co. v. Department of the Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 (1945). However, the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suits against state officers for money damages to be paid out of the officer's own pockets. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985).
In the instant matter, the office of Trooper Hammond is the KSP, an official organ of the Kentucky State Government. The claims brought against him in his official capacity seek monetary, but not injunctive relief. As such, the Eleventh Amendment bars the claims against trooper Hammond in his official capacity. However, the claims brought against Hammond in his individual capacity are not precluded by the Eleventh Amendment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the claims against Hammond in his official capacity are DISMISSED.
An appropriate order shall issue.