×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
District of Columbia is "Suable Entity" Under 42 U.S.C. §1983
District of Columbia is "Suable Entity" Under 42 U.S.C. §1983
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.) held
that the district can be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Twenty-three D.C. prisoners at the Lorton Reformatory were transferred by
air to the Spokane County (Washington) Jail. The prisoners were in
handcuffs, belly chains and leg irons. During the flight, D.C. officials
repeatedly videotaped the prisoners. The video was later shown to a third
party.
The prisoners sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and D.C. common law, claiming the
videotaping violated their privacy rights. The defendants moved for
dismissal for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
Citing 42 U.S.C. §1343 and Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S.
58 (1989), defendants argued that D.C. is a "state" immune from suit by the
Eleventh Amendment. The court held that D.C. is a "state" only for purposes
of §1343, not §1983. Further, the Supreme Court had previously held that
D.C. is a municipality, and municipalities have no Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The district court held that the facts alleged by the prisoners did state a
claim. The law was sufficiently clear, so that qualified immunity was not
appropriate, and the facts were in dispute so summary judgment could not be
granted.
The court denied the defendants' motions and ordered discovery to proceed.
See: Best v. District of Columbia, 743 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C, 1990).
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.) held
that the district can be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Twenty-three D.C. prisoners at the Lorton Reformatory were transferred by
air to the Spokane County (Washington) Jail. The prisoners were in
handcuffs, belly chains and leg irons. During the flight, D.C. officials
repeatedly videotaped the prisoners. The video was later shown to a third
party.
The prisoners sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and D.C. common law, claiming the
videotaping violated their privacy rights. The defendants moved for
dismissal for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
Citing 42 U.S.C. §1343 and Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S.
58 (1989), defendants argued that D.C. is a "state" immune from suit by the
Eleventh Amendment. The court held that D.C. is a "state" only for purposes
of §1343, not §1983. Further, the Supreme Court had previously held that
D.C. is a municipality, and municipalities have no Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The district court held that the facts alleged by the prisoners did state a
claim. The law was sufficiently clear, so that qualified immunity was not
appropriate, and the facts were in dispute so summary judgment could not be
granted.
The court denied the defendants' motions and ordered discovery to proceed.
See: Best v. District of Columbia, 743 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C, 1990).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login