From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Biggs v. Meadows

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Sep 18, 1995
66 F.3d 56 (4th Cir. 1995)

Summary

holding "that a plaintiff need not plead expressly the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in order to state a cause of action under § 1983"

Summary of this case from Agbara v. Prince George's Cnty. Pub. Sch.

Opinion

No. 94-6667

Argued: March 9, 1995

Decided: September 18, 1995

ARGUED: James Douglas Minor, Student Counsel, Appellate Litigation Clinical Program, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

James Peeler Smith, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Steven H. Goldblatt, Director, Ellen R. Finn, Supervising Attorney, Appellate Litigation Clinical Program, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, M. Lynn Jarvis, Associate Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (CA-93-17-CRT-BR)

W. Earl Britt, District Judge.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Ervin wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkins and Judge Williams joined.


In this case, we address whether a plaintiff filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §(s) 1983 must plead expressly that state officials are being sued in their individual, rather than official, capacities. Adopting the view accepted by most other circuits, we hold that a litigant need not explicitly draw such a distinction. Instead, a court must look to the substance of the complaint, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings to determine the nature of a plaintiff's claims. Because the district court erroneously applied a presumption that defendants are sued only in their official capacities unless a complaint specifically states that a personal capacity suit is intended, we reverse the judgment of the district court dismissing this action and remand the case for further proceedings.

I.

On January 11, 1993, appellant Robert Biggs, a North Carolina inmate incarcerated at the Gates Correctional Center in Gatesville, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §(s) 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The complaint named as defendants prison Nurse Juanita Cartwright, prison Superintendent Barnes, and Area Administrator William Meadows. Seeking compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000 for the denial of proper medical treatment and his attendant suffering, Biggs alleged that the defendants had acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, Biggs, who was taking various prescription drugs when he was transferred to Gates on December 1, 1992, claimed that the prison psychiatrist had prescribed new medication for him on December 13, which he did not receive until December 29. This lapse apparently was related to the prison's medical personnel not having the newly prescribed drugs on the premises. Ordered from another prison pharmacy, the medication did not arrive until the afternoon of December 23, the last working day before Christmas. In addition to the substantial delay, Biggs asserted that he had vomited every night from taking the wrong medication and that he had filed two grievances based on the improper administration of his medicine, both of which had been denied. Biggs also contended that Nurse Cartwright had failed to dispense the prescribed medication at the appropriate time and that Assistant Superintendent Austin Weeks had failed to correct the problem after Biggs brought it to his attention.

On May 28, 1993, the district court ordered Biggs to particularize his complaint with regard to defendants Barnes and Meadows, because Biggs had failed to allege any conduct on which liability could be imposed on them. Biggs responded by conceding that Barnes and Meadows had no direct involvement in the events at issue and by seeking to amend his complaint in order to add Superintendent Weeks as a defendant. On July 2, 1993, the court dismissed the claims against Barnes and Meadows as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §(s) 1915(d) and granted Biggs' request to add Weeks as a defendant.

Weeks and Cartwright filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on March 25, 1994. They contended that they had not been deliberately indifferent to Biggs' medical needs. In addition, Weeks and Cartwright argued that Biggs' suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, because Section(s) 1983 prohibits claims for damages against state officers acting in their official capacities, and Biggs had failed to plead expressly that the defendants were being sued as individuals. Finally, Weeks and Cartwright claimed that they were qualifiedly immune from liability.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss. In doing so, the court applied a presumption that Section(s) 1983 defendants are sued only in their official capacities unless the complaint explicitly states that the defendants are being sued in their individual capacities: "When a complaint is silent on the issue, we should normally assume defendants are sued in their official capacities only; a complaint should expressly say `individual capacity' when a plaintiff intends to sue a defendant as such." The court then noted that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits the recovery of monetary damages from state officials sued in their official capacities and that Biggs had sought monetary relief only. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Biggs filed a timely notice of appeal to this court. Jurisdiction over this Section(s) 1983 action is proper under 28 U.S.C. §(s) 1343(3) and 1291.

Weeks and Cartwright contend that personal jurisdiction does not exist here under Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), which holds that states are not "persons" under Section(s) 1983. They argue that both we and the district court lack personal jurisdiction, because they were sued as state actors only. This position erroneously assumes the answer to the question presented — that the defendants were sued only in their official capacities. Because we reject that view, see infra, Will creates no jurisdictional obstacle.

II.

Biggs contends that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint based on his failure to allege expressly that he was suing state officials Weeks and Cartwright in their individual capacities. We review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, construing the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Schatz v. Rosenberg, 943 F.2d 485, 489 (4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 936 (1992). Estate Constr. Co. v. Miller Smith Holding Co., 14 F.3d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1994). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper where "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984).

In Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 23 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that state officials sued in their individual capacities are "persons" for purposes of Section(s) 1983. The Hafer Court noted, but declined to resolve, a split among the federal circuit courts on the appropriate way to treat a complaint that fails to state explicitly the capacity in which a defendant is sued under Section(s) 1983. The Court "reiterate[d] the Third Circuit's view that `[i]t is obviously preferable for the plaintiff to be specific in the first instance to avoid any ambiguity.'" Id. at 24 n.* (quoting Melo v. Hafer, 912 F.2d 628, 636 (3rd Cir. 1990), aff'd, 502 U.S. at 21). In a footnote, the Supreme Court noted that the Third Circuit had looked to the proceedings below to determine whether certain of the plaintiffs had brought their claims for damages against the defendant in her official or personal capacity. Id.; cf. Gregory v. Chehi, 843 F.2d 111, 119-20 (3rd Cir. 1988) ("[R]esolving doubts in favor of plaintiff, we will assume he is suing the individuals in their personal capacities as well."). In addition to the Third Circuit, a substantial majority of other circuits — including the Second, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh — have adopted this approach, looking to the substance of the plaintiff's claim, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings to determine the nature of a Section(s) 1983 suit when a plaintiff fails to allege capacity. See, e.g., Frank v. Relin, 1 F.3d 1317, 1326 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 604 (1993); Parker v. Graves, 479 F.2d 335, 336 (5th Cir. 1973); Conner v. Reinhard, 847 F.2d 384, 394 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988); Price v. Akaka, 928 F.2d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 967 (1991); Houston v. Reich, 932 F.2d 883, 885 (10th Cir. 1991); Lundgren v. McDaniel, 814 F.2d 600, 604 (11th Cir. 1987).

In contrast, two Circuits — the Sixth and the Eighth — utilize the presumption applied by the district court in this case: where a Section(s) 1983 complaint is silent as to capacity, it is presumed that a defendant has been sued only in her official capacity. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592 (6th Cir. 1989); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1989). This position is based on a perception that the Eleventh Amendment operates as a substantive limitation on the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. See Wells, 891 F.2d at 592; Nix, 879 F.2d at 431. The case of Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), establishes that a Section(s) 1983 plaintiff cannot overcome a state's immunity under that Amendment merely by naming a state official instead. Because Rule 9(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that capacity be averred "to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court," these circuits have mandated that individual capacity be pleaded expressly to demonstrate that Eleventh Amendment immunity is not implicated and that jurisdiction is proper.

Although the First Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed this issue, a federal district court in that circuit also adopted the minority position. Charron v. Picano, 811 F. Supp. 768, 772 (D.R.I. 1993). That case was not appealed.

Heretofore, we have published no authority on this issue. Because we find the majority view to be more persuasive, we hold today that a plaintiff need not plead expressly the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in order to state a cause of action under Section(s) 1983. The minority view neglects the considerable differences between Eleventh Amendment immunity and federal jurisdiction. Cf. Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 786 n. 4 (1991) (noting that the jurisdiction and immunity issues are "wholly distinct"). For example, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, which federal courts must evaluate independent of the parties' contentions, courts have discretion to raise Eleventh Amendment immunity. Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 515 n. 19 (1982) ("[W]e have never held that [ Eleventh Amendment immunity] is jurisdictional in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this Court on its own motion."). Likewise, a state may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity under certain circumstances, see id., whereas "[n]o action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court." Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982). Finally, although Congress may abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity provided it does so with clear intent, Congress has no power to override a constitutional limitation on the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Compare Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985) ("affirm[ing] that Congress may abrogate the States' constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear"), with National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582 (1949) (noting that Congress cannot expand the jurisdiction of federal courts beyond that granted in the Constitution). Eleventh Amendment immunity is not truly a limit on the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts, but a block on the exercise of that jurisdiction. Cf. Patsy, 457 U.S. at 516 n. 19 (noting that "the Eleventh Amendment defense . . . partakes of the nature of a jurisdiction bar" (quotation marks omitted)). Once that fundamental distinction is recognized, not only does Rule 9 not require that a Section(s) 1983 plaintiff expressly plead capacity, it actually prohibits courts from imposing a more stringent standard. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(a) ("It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued . . ., except to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court." (emphasis added)); cf. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1161 (1993) (rejecting a "heightened pleading standard" in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. §(s) 1983).

We recognize, of course, that it still is preferable for a plaintiff to plead capacity specifically. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 24 n.*.

Under the standard we now adopt, when a plaintiff does not allege capacity specifically, the court must examine the nature of the plaintiff's claims, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings to determine whether a state official is being sued in a personal capacity. One factor indicating that suit has been filed in such a manner might be the plaintiff's failure to allege that the defendant acted in accordance with a governmental policy or custom, or the lack of indicia of such a policy or custom on the face of the complaint. See Hill v. Shelander, 924 F.2d 1370, 1374 (7th Cir. 1991) (finding a personal capacity claim where "the unconstitutional conduct alleged involves [the defendant's] individual actions and nowhere alludes to an official policy or custom that would shield him from individual culpability"); see also Conner, 847 F.2d at 394 n. 8. Another indication that suit has been brought against a state actor personally may be a plaintiff's request for compensatory or punitive damages, since such relief is unavailable in official capacity suits. See, e.g., Shabazz v. Coughlin, 852 F.2d 697, 700 (2d Cir. 1988); Pride v. Does, 997 F.2d 712, 715 (10th Cir. 1993); Price, 928 F.2d at 828; Gregory, 843 F.2d at 119-20; Hill, 924 F.2d at 1374. The nature of any defenses raised in response to the complaint is an additional relevant factor. Because qualified immunity is available only in a personal capacity suit, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 (1985), the assertion of that defense indicates that the defendant interpreted the plaintiff's action as being against him personally. See Conner, 847 F.2d at 394; Lundgren, 814 F.2d at 604. Throughout, the underlying inquiry remains whether the plaintiff's intention to hold a defendant personally liable can be ascertained fairly.

Applying the above analysis to the case before us, we first examine the substance of Biggs' complaint. Biggs claims that the prison psychiatrist prescribed medication for him on December 13, 1992, which he did not receive until December 29, and that he vomited nightly from taking the wrong medication. In particular, he contends that Cartwright failed to dispense his medication at the appropriate time and that Weeks failed to correct the problem after Biggs brought it to his attention. These allegations focus on Weeks' and Cartwright's actions toward Biggs and do not necessarily implicate an official policy or custom. Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 ("[T]o establish personal liability in a Section(s) 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right."). In addition, the reference in Biggs' complaint to Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the seminal case regarding Eighth Amendment requirements for the administration of medication to prisoners, indicates a concern about improper medical treatment, not the prison's official grievance procedure, as the defendants suggest. As to the relief requested, Biggs sought compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000. As the appellant notes in his brief, "it would have been both illogical and futile for Mr. Biggs to sue the defendants in their official capacities and to then request a form of relief that would clearly be unavailable to him in such a suit." Brief of Appellant at 15-16. Examining the course of proceedings, the defendants asserted, among other defenses, that they are entitled to qualified immunity. This suggests that Weeks and Cartwright perceived the complaint to state a claim against them as individuals, since qualified immunity is unavailable in official capacity suits. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 165. On the other hand, the defendants also raised the issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity, so this factor is accorded less weight than otherwise would be the case. In any event, the assertion of qualified immunity provides some indication that Weeks and Cartwright are not prejudiced by our treating Biggs' complaint as one brought against the defendants in their personal capacities. Overall, the relevant factors in this case demonstrate that Biggs intended to sue the defendants as individuals.

III.

Because the district court wrongly dismissed Biggs' complaint based on its erroneous conclusion that he intended to sue the defendants in their official capacity only, we reverse the court's judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED


Summaries of

Biggs v. Meadows

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Sep 18, 1995
66 F.3d 56 (4th Cir. 1995)

holding "that a plaintiff need not plead expressly the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in order to state a cause of action under § 1983"

Summary of this case from Agbara v. Prince George's Cnty. Pub. Sch.

holding that capacity can only be determined by the court when not specifically alleged in the complaint

Summary of this case from Turner v. Thomas

holding that when the plaintiff does not specially allege capacity, the court must examine the nature of the claims made and the course of the proceedings to determine whether a state official is being sued in a personal or an official capacity

Summary of this case from Adkins v. McClanahan

holding that a plaintiff need not expressly plead the capacity in which he is suing a defendant under § 1983, but the court must examine the nature of the plaintiff's claims, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings to determine whether a state official is being sued in a personal capacity

Summary of this case from Keys v. Carroll

holding that a plaintiff need not expressly plead the capacity in which he is suing a defendant under § 1983, but the court must examine the nature of the plaintiff's claims, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings to determine whether a state official is being sued in a personal capacity

Summary of this case from Banks v. Gallagher

holding that "a plaintiff need not plead expressly the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in order to state a cause of action under § 1983"

Summary of this case from Chen v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore

Holding that a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 need not specify the capacity in which a state official is being sued, but a court may look to the substance of the complaint, the relief sought, and course of proceedings to make a determination

Summary of this case from Bland v. Virginia State University

holding it will adopt view of the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits that plaintiff does not need to expressly plead the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in a § 1983 claim

Summary of this case from Romano v. Brown

finding that the nature of any defenses raised in response to the complaint is a factor to consider in determining the capacity in which the state official has been sued

Summary of this case from Dillon v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Dept.

adopting majority approach that looks to “the substance of the plaintiff's claim, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings to determine the nature of a § 1983 suit when a plaintiff fails to allege capacity”

Summary of this case from Opalenik v. LaBrie

adopting majority view of looking to "substance of the plaintiff's claim, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings to determine the nature of a § 1983 suit when plaintiff fails to allege capacity

Summary of this case from Strauss v. County of Berks

adopting view of the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits that a plaintiff need not expressly plead the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in a § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Casilla v. New Jersey State Prison

rejecting presumption applied by minority of Circuits that "where a § 1983 complaint is silent as to capacity, it is presumed that a defendant has been sued only in her official capacity"

Summary of this case from Sutton v. N.C. State Bar

recognizing that courts have discretion to raise Eleventh Amendment immunity

Summary of this case from MacKlin v. Huffman

noting that throughout the course of proceedings, "the underlying inquiry remains whether the plaintiff's intention to hold a defendant personally liable can be ascertained fairly"

Summary of this case from Moore v. City of Harriman

examining "the nature of the plaintiff's claims, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings"

Summary of this case from Daskalea v. District of Columbia

addressing dismissal on Eleventh Amendment grounds as dismissal for failure to state claim

Summary of this case from Andrews v. Daw

In Biggs v. Meadows, 66 F.3d 56 (4th Cir. 1995), we held "that a plaintiff need not plead expressly the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in order to state a cause of action under Section(s) 1983."

Summary of this case from Amos v. Maryland Dept. of Public Safety

noting that a plaintiff's request for compensatory or punitive damages may support an inference that a plaintiff is suing a defendant in an individual capacity

Summary of this case from Thomas v. N.C. Mut. Life Ins. Co.

looking to the “nature of the plaintiff's claims, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings” and construing claims as against officers in their individual capacities despite “confusion” as to the capacity in which they were sued

Summary of this case from Halchak v. Dorrance Twp. Bd. of Supervisors

noting that when a plaintiff does not specifically allege capacity, the court should examine the nature of the plaintiff's claims and the relief sought to determine capacity

Summary of this case from Morris v. Taylor

discussing the Eleventh Amendment

Summary of this case from Burns v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

noting compensatory and punitive damages are "unavailable in official capacity suits"

Summary of this case from Upshur v. Fowler

In Biggs, the Fourth Circuit stated that, "when a plaintiff does not allege capacity specifically, the court must examine the nature of the plaintiff's claims, the relief sought, and the course of proceedings to determine whether a state official is being sued in a personal capacity."

Summary of this case from Klug v. Marshall Univ. Joan C. Edwards Sch. of Med.

providing that one factor a court many consider is a failure by the plaintiff "to allege that the defendant acted in accordance with a governmental policy or custom, or the lack of indicia of such a policy or custom on the face of the complaint"

Summary of this case from Klug v. Marshall Univ. Joan C. Edwards Sch. of Med.
Case details for

Biggs v. Meadows

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT BIGGS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM C. MEADOWS; NURSE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Sep 18, 1995

Citations

66 F.3d 56 (4th Cir. 1995)

Citing Cases

Powell v. Alexander

The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that: See, e.g., Moore v. City of Harriman, 272 F.3d 769, 772 (6th…

Pieve-Marin v. Combas-Sancho

The First Circuit has not addressed the question of how specifically a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must…