Carver v. Sheriff of Lasalle County, Illinois
| Decision Date | 09 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-1569.,00-1569. |
| Citation | 324 F.3d 947 |
| Parties | Margaret M. CARVER and Randall S. Carmean, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHERIFF OF LaSALLE COUNTY, Illinois, Defendant, and LaSalle County, Illinois, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Andrew W. Levenfeld (argued), Levenfeld & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Gary R. Garretson, Morris, IL, for Defendant.
William C. Barasha (argued), Judge & James, Park Ridge, IL, Keith R. Leigh, Leigh, Pool & Fabricius, Ottawa, IL, for Appellee.
Before FAIRCHILD, EASTERBROOK, and MANION, Circuit Judges.
Margaret Carver and Randall Carmean hold a federal judgment for $500,000 as the result of a settlement in this case, which arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The settlement was reached with the Sheriff of LaSalle County, in his official capacity (for Title VII covers "employers" and not agents). Because the Sheriff's Office lacks funds to pay the judgment, plaintiffs tried to collect from LaSalle County, which denied any obligation.
The district court agreed with the County's position, which left plaintiffs unable to collect their judgment. We asked the Supreme Court of Illinois to determine who is responsible for paying an official-capacity judgment against an independently elected county officer. See Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 243 F.3d 379 (7th Cir.2001). The Supreme Court of Illinois accepted the certification and concluded:
under Illinois law a sheriff, in his or her official capacity, has the authority to settle and compromise claims brought against the sheriff's office. Because the office of the sheriff is funded by the county, the county is therefore required to pay a judgment entered against a sheriff's office in an official capacity. We further hold that this conclusion is not affected by whether the case was settled or litigated.
Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 787 N.E.2d 127, 141, 272 Ill.Dec. 312, 203 Ill.2d 497 (2003) ().
The Supreme Court of Illinois has our thanks for resolving this knotty and recurring question of state law. Its answer implies an additional point of federal law: that a county in Illinois is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county officer (sheriff, assessor, clerk of court, and so on) in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Bureau County
...Sheriff in his official capacity, and Bureau County's suggestion that it is not a proper party is mistaken. Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 324 F.3d 947, 948 (7th Cir.2003). Under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978),......
-
Roger Whitmore's Auto. v. Lake County, Il
...be pleaded as necessary parties in suits seeking damages against independently elected sheriffs like Del Re. See Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 324 F.3d 947, 948 (7th Cir.2003). This clarification relates not to substantive liability of the sort Roger alleged, but instead addresses Il......
-
Schmude v. Sheahan
...Cook with a copy of the most recent complaint that was filed in the case. I mentioned several weeks ago the Carver case. The citation is 324 F.3d 947, Seventh Circuit The County must be here in this case. And that is what the Seventh Circuit has said, and that is what the Illinois Supreme C......
-
Williams v. Dart, 19-2108
...and Cook County itself (only because it pays for the Sheriff's office, so we will not refer to it again). See Carver v. Sheriff , 324 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2003).On April 12, 2018 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint pleading Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983......