Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC v. Tunica County, Miss.
543 F.3d 221, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20068, 2008 WL 4274462 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a public official is entitled to qualified immunity for an alleged due process violation if the underlying right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, but the municipality for which the official is a final policymaker does not receive such immunity and may be held liable for the same act.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs James Hampton Gardner, his company Hampton Company National Surety, LLC, and his employee James Dean, were licensed by the state of Mississippi to write bail bonds.
- Gardner and Dean had previously participated in an investigation of the prior Tunica County sheriff and had publicly criticized the current sheriff, Calvin Hamp, Sr.
- In February 2005, Sheriff Hamp removed Gardner, Dean, and their company from the roster of bail bond agents approved to write bonds in Tunica County.
- The Sheriff's stated reason for the removal was that several defendants bonded by the Plaintiffs had failed to appear in court.
- Two African-American bail bondsmen were removed from the approved list at the same time for the same stated reason.
- The two other bondsmen were promptly reinstated to the list after they remedied the situation regarding their clients.
- Plaintiffs also remedied the situation regarding their clients but were not reinstated to the approved list.
- Plaintiffs remained barred from writing bonds in Tunica County for nearly two years, until December 2006.
Procedural Posture:
- James Hampton Gardner, his company, and his employee (Plaintiffs) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Sheriff Calvin Hamp, Sr. and Tunica County in the United States District Court.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the First Amendment.
- Both Sheriff Hamp and Tunica County moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all claims, holding that the Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity and that the County was not liable.
- The Plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is a public official entitled to qualified immunity for violating a constitutional right that was not 'clearly established' at the time of the conduct, and is the municipality for which the official works also shielded from liability for the same act?
Opinions:
Majority - Southwick, Circuit Judge
Yes, as to the official, but no, as to the municipality. A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for violating a right that was not clearly established, but the municipality itself is not shielded and can be held liable. The court applied a two-part test for qualified immunity to Sheriff Hamp's due process claim. It found that while a state-issued license can be a property interest, the specific right to write bonds in a particular county was not clearly established under Mississippi law at the time of Sheriff Hamp's actions, as evidenced by a prior federal court decision (Baldwin v. Daniels). Because the law was uncertain, the Sheriff's actions were not 'objectively unreasonable,' so he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. However, municipalities do not receive qualified immunity. The court found that because Mississippi sheriffs are final policymakers for their counties, Sheriff Hamp's single decision to remove the Plaintiffs constituted an official county policy. Therefore, Tunica County can be held liable for the potential due process violation even if the right was not clearly established. For the Equal Protection and First Amendment claims, the court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the Sheriff's true motives. Evidence that similarly situated Black bondsmen were reinstated while the white Plaintiffs were not, and the temporal proximity of Plaintiffs' public criticism to their removal, created factual questions about discriminatory and retaliatory intent that must be decided at trial, precluding summary judgment for either the Sheriff or the County on those claims.
Analysis:
This case clearly delineates the separate liability standards for individual officials and municipalities under § 1983. It demonstrates how the doctrine of qualified immunity can protect an official from personal liability for actions taken in a legal 'gray area,' even if those actions are later found to be unconstitutional. Conversely, it reinforces the principle from Monell that a municipality is liable for the unconstitutional acts of its final policymakers, regardless of whether the law was clearly established at the time. This decision thus preserves a path to relief for plaintiffs against government entities even when the individual official is immune, ensuring that unconstitutional government policies do not go without a remedy.
