McMillian v. Monroe County
1997 U.S. LEXIS 3398, 520 U.S. 781, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Whether an official has final policymaking authority for a local government entity, for purposes of § 1983 liability, is a question of state law. Courts must analyze the state's constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions to determine whether the official is acting on behalf of the state or the local entity when performing the specific function at issue.
Facts:
- In November 1986, Ronda Morrison was murdered in Monroe County, Alabama.
- Walter McMillian and Ralph Myers were indicted for the crime, which was investigated by officials including Monroe County Sheriff Tom Tate.
- McMillian alleged that during the investigation, Sheriff Tate intimidated Myers into making false statements and suppressed exculpatory evidence.
- Based on Myers' testimony, a jury convicted McMillian of capital murder, and he was sentenced to death.
- After McMillian spent six years in prison, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction.
- The reversal was based on the State's violation of Brady v. Maryland, for suppressing statements from Myers that contradicted his trial testimony and other exculpatory evidence.
- Following his release, McMillian sued Monroe County and Sheriff Tate, among others, for their actions during the investigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter McMillian filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against Monroe County and Sheriff Tom Tate, in his official capacity.
- The District Court dismissed the claims against Monroe County and against Sheriff Tate in his official capacity, holding that an Alabama county has no authority to make policy in law enforcement.
- McMillian, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, agreeing that Sheriff Tate is not a final policymaker for Monroe County in the area of law enforcement.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision.
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 Alabama sheriff, when executing law enforcement duties, represent the State of Alabama or the county for purposes of determining municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
The State of Alabama. An Alabama sheriff acts as a policymaker for the State, not the county, when performing law enforcement functions. This determination rests on an analysis of Alabama law, which shows that sheriffs are constitutionally designated as part of the state's executive department and are subject to the state's direct control and impeachment authority. The Alabama Supreme Court has consistently held that sheriffs are state officers, meaning tort claims based on their official acts are suits against the state, not the county. While counties provide funding and sheriffs are elected locally, the state constitution, statutes defining law enforcement duties, and oversight from the governor and attorney general establish the sheriff as an agent of the state in this capacity.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
The county. An Alabama sheriff acts as a policymaker for the county because sheriffs are quintessentially local officials who are elected, paid, and equipped by the county, with their authority confined to the county's borders. State constitutional labels are not dispositive for a § 1983 analysis, which should focus on the practical realities of the office. A sheriff's autonomy within the county, combined with the county's control of the office's budget, establishes the sheriff as the county's final policymaker in the area of law enforcement, making the county responsible for the sheriff's official policies and actions.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that determining municipal liability under § 1983 is not a uniform federal question but a highly particularized inquiry dependent on each state's legal framework. By requiring a deep dive into state law to characterize an official's role, the Court created a 'patchwork' system where a sheriff in one state can be a county agent while a sheriff in another is a state agent. This ruling can make it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue local governments for civil rights violations, as they may be forced to sue the state instead, which often has sovereign immunity protections. The case solidifies the principle that state law defines the lines of authority and liability for § 1983 purposes.
