Johnny Ray Layne v. Richard Sampley
1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 14971, 627 F.2d 12 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An off-duty police officer can be found to be acting 'under color of state law' for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the incident's genesis stems from their official duties, they use equipment authorized by their position, and surrounding circumstances suggest their actions are linked to their authority.
Facts:
- Officer Sampley was called to Layne’s house to investigate a complaint of a domestic disturbance, which apparently caused bad feelings between the two.
- Later the same day, Layne called police headquarters to threaten Sampley, telling the dispatcher to tell Sampley he would “fix him” in his own time and place.
- On June 19, 1976, Layne spotted Sampley, who was off-duty and in civilian clothes, sitting in his personal car with his wife, talking to other police officers, and passing a revolver around.
- At this time, Sampley was in possession of his service revolver, which was his own property and which he was authorized, but not required, to carry when off-duty; permission to carry a handgun in Tennessee was extended only to law enforcement officers.
- Layne approached Sampley and stated, “Richard, I heard you was going to shoot me,” to which Sampley replied, “I heard it the other way around.”
- Sampley testified he saw Layne move to the back of the car and make a movement that caused Sampley to believe Layne was reaching for a gun, while Layne claimed he did nothing suspicious and his tight clothing would have revealed any weapon.
- Sampley then shot Layne in the stomach with a .35 caliber revolver from a distance of three to four feet, causing permanent physical difficulties.
Procedural Posture:
- Layne filed an action against Sampley in District Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- A jury in the District Court found in favor of Layne and awarded $16,000 in compensatory damages.
- The District Judge set aside the jury's verdict, granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), holding there was no evidence to support a finding that Sampley acted 'under color of state law.'
- Layne appealed the District Court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (appellant Layne, appellee Sampley).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an off-duty police officer act 'under color of state law' when shooting a civilian, if the animosity between them arose from the officer's official duties, the officer used a service weapon authorized by their position, and the civilian was unaware the officer was off-duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Cornelia G. Kennedy, Circuit Judge
Yes, an off-duty police officer can act 'under color of state law' in such circumstances, and the jury's finding of such action was supported by the evidence. The court emphasized that an officer's off-duty status does not resolve the question; rather, it is necessary to scrutinize the nature of the act itself. The fact that Sampley had authority to carry the weapon only because he was a police officer, that the argument’s genesis was 'unquestionably in the performance of police duties,' and that the threat was received through a police agency, all raised a question for the jury regarding whether Sampley was acting under color of state law. When these factors are combined with Layne finding Sampley with a revolver in the company of other police officers and Layne's lack of knowledge that Sampley was on vacation, the court determined that the jury’s verdict was supported by evidence in the record and should not have been set aside.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of 'under color of state law' for Section 1983 claims, especially concerning off-duty officers. It establishes that an officer's official capacity is not simply shed when off-duty if the incident's roots are intertwined with their police work or authority. The ruling reinforces that the determination is a fact-intensive inquiry, often best left to a jury, and prevents officers from easily evading accountability by claiming off-duty status when leveraging their position or tools of office.
