Nelson v. Strawn

• Decision Date: 25 August 1995
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 2:93-0066-18.
• Citation: 897 F. Supp. 252
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: Jimmie NELSON, Plaintiff, v. Officer Tim STRAWN and The City of Moncks Corner, Defendants.

897 F. Supp. 252

Jimmie NELSON, Plaintiff, v. Officer Tim STRAWN and The City of Moncks Corner, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 2:93-0066-18.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

August 25, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jimmie Nelson, Bennettsville, SC, pro se.

Sandra J. Senn, Charleston, SC, for defendants.

ORDER

NORTON, District Judge.

This is a pro se action filed by a former pretrial detainee against a City of Moncks Corner police officer and the City of Moncks Corner (City). The issues before this court on cross-motions for summary judgment are (1) qualified immunity, (2) Eleventh Amendment immunity, and (3) municipal liability. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a United States Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. This court accepts the Report & Recommendation with the modified analysis set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jimmie Nelson alleges that on March 1, 1990, Defendant Strawn, while acting in his capacity as an officer with the City of Moncks Corner Police Department, arrested Nelson for setting fire to his cell at the Berkeley Country jail and "exciting (sic) a riot." Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. at 2. Nelson asserts that Strawn had no probable cause for the arrest and that Nelson was never prosecuted for the offense. Plaintiff also asserts that Strawn used excessive force in effecting the arrest.

Nelson filed suit on November 30, 1992; however, due to procedural problems, he was allowed to amend his Complaint after the magistrate judge originally recommended summary dismissal due to improper pleadings. The Complaint was amended in early 1993.

On July 12, 1993, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a few days later filed a Motion for Sanctions, Attorneys Fees, and Injunction. On January 7, 1994, a Report and Recommendation was entered by United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr recommending that Defendants' summary judgment motion be denied. No objection was filed, and this court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation on February 1, 1994. On March 30, 1994, Defendants again moved to dismiss on separate grounds. On January 12, 1995, the magistrate judge recommended that Defendants' motion be granted based on qualified immunity and failure to show municipal fault.

A party may object, in writing, to a magistrate judge's report within ten days after being served with a copy of that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Three days are added to the ten-day period if the recommendation is mailed rather than personally served. Nelson filed his timely written objection with the court on January 20, 1995. Nelson filed a "Second Objection" on January 25, 1995. Defendants filed their objection on January 27, 1995. Plaintiff filed opposition to Defendants' objection on February 6, 1995.

This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

II. CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT¹

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Rule 56(c) requires that the district court enter judgment against a party who "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, a party must demonstrate that: (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and (2) that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact has been raised, the court construes all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See id. at 257-58, 106 S.Ct. at 2514-15. If, however, "the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law," summary judgment is appropriate. Id. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. at 2511-12. A party "cannot create a genuine issue of fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another." See Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir.1985). To survive a summary judgment motion, the non-movant may not rest on his or her pleadings, but must demonstrate that specific, material facts exist that give rise to a genuine issue. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. As the Anderson Court explained, the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 244, 106 S.Ct. at 2508.

B. Qualified Immunity

The magistrate judge recommended that Officer Strawn be shielded by qualified immunity. Strawn had raised the issue of qualified immunity before it was determined that he was being sued only in his official capacity, which was established by Order of the magistrate judge on November 15, 1994. Qualified immunity is available only in an individual-capacity suit. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166-67, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105-06, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). Therefore, the magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be accepted on this ground. Defendant Strawn, in his official capacity, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

C. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Defendants also raise Eleventh Amendment immunity as a defense, saying that any recovery against either Defendant in this action would be paid by the State Insurance Reserve Fund and thus would be a judgment against the State of South Carolina.

The Eleventh Amendment provides that "the Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. Although by its terms the Eleventh Amendment applies only to suits brought against a state by "Citizens of another State," it is well established that "an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State." Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). This immunity extends as well to state agencies and other government entities properly characterized as "arms of the State." Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280, 97 S.Ct. 568, 572, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Like the state itself, state officers acting in their official capacities are also shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity because "a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office," and "as such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself." Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). A state and its officer are not protected by the Eleventh Amendment, however, when a plaintiff seeks only prospective, injunctive relief, because such relief does not amount to federal interference with a state treasury. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

Though the Eleventh Amendment bars a damages action against a state in federal court, it has traditionally erected no jurisdictional bar to suits against local governmental entities. Will, 491 U.S. at 70, 109 S.Ct. at 2312. Recently, however, some courts have extended this bar to federal suits against state-insured local governments based on the premise that judgments against them would be partially paid from state funds. Bockes v. Fields, 999 F.2d 788 (4th Cir.1993); Cromer v. Brown, Civ. Ac. No. 6:XX-XXXX-XXAK (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 1994). Defendants seek to avail themselves of the protection afforded by this extension of traditional Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Clearly, a defense based on the Eleventh Amendment is properly an issue in an official-capacity suit. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31, 112 S.Ct. 358, 364-65, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). However, whether these particular Defendants may invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity is a different question, and one that the magistrate judge resolved against Defendants. The City and Officer Strawn rely on Bockes v. Fields, 999 F.2d 788 (4th Cir.1993), which cloaks a county department and board of social services with Eleventh Amendment immunity because the Commonwealth of Virginia paid for 80% of the insurance policy covering their activities. The magistrate judge distinguished the case at hand from Bockes, saying Defendants failed to show that South Carolina's insurance program for municipalities is sufficiently state-funded, as was the Virginia program at issue in Bockes. The magistrate judge also relied on Beardsley v. Webb, 30 F.3d 524 (4th Cir.1994), in which a federal court in Virginia, finding a state insurance policy to be an insufficient link, declined to shield a county deputy sheriff with Eleventh Amendment immunity. However, in Beardsley, the defendant was sued in his individual capacity, and though he tried to cloak himself in Eleventh Amendment immunity by virtue of his voluntary subscription to a state liability insurance plan, the court held that such indemnification for individual liability did not invoke Eleventh Amendment protection. Significantly, in Beardsley, as here, the premiums and costs for insurance were paid by the participating governmental entities, not by the state. Nevertheless, the reasoning in Beardsley does not compel a like decision in this case, because all Defendants here are sued in their...