Comardelle v. Hernandez ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30998
(Summary Calendar)
In Re: HARRY J. MOREL, St. Charles Parish
District Attorney; KURT SINS, St. Charles
Parish Assistant District Attorney,
Petitioners,
MURPHY MARTIN COMARDELLE,
Plaintiff-Respondent.
Consolidated with
Nos. 98-31001 and 98-31222
MURPHY MARTIN COMARDELLE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
POLLIS HERNANDEZ, also known as Pookie
Hernandez; ET AL.,
Defendants,
HARRY J. MOREL, St. Charles Parish District
Attorney; KURT SINS, St. Charles Parish
Assistant District Attorney,
Defendants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(98-CV-679-I)
- - - - - - - - - -
July 25, 2000
Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioners Harry J. Morel and Kurt Sins request rehearing of
our affirmance of the district court’s refusal to grant their
motion to dismiss, on the basis of absolute immunity, the claims
filed against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their official
capacities. As the claims brought against Morel and Sins have all
effectively been dismissed, we grant rehearing and reverse the
district court’s ruling only insofar as it failed to grant the
Defendant-Appellants’ motion to dismiss the claims brought against
them in their official capacities.1
Plaintiff-Appellee initially brought these claims against
Morel and Sins and against the St. Charles Parish District
Attorneys Office (“the DA’s office”). Shortly thereafter, by ex
parte motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed inter alia all claims
against the DA’s office and that order was entered by the district
court. Several months later, Defendant-Appellants filed a motion
to dismiss the claims brought against them, asserting defenses of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
1
To decide this case, it is not necessary to address the
jurisdictional issue advanced by the prosecutors, of immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment. As all claims against Defendant-
Appellants have been dismissed, the question of Eleventh
Amendment immunity has been rendered moot.
2
absolute and qualified immunity as well as Eleventh Amendment
immunity. The district court granted that motion in part, on the
grounds of absolute prosecutorial immunity, dismissing all claims
brought against Morel and Sins in their individual capacities.
Holding that the plaintiff’s complaint also asserted claims against
Defendants-Appellants in their official capacity, the district
court refused to dismiss those claims.
“[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.”2 The claims brought by Plaintiff-
Appellee against Morel and Sins in their official prosecutorial
capacities are thus claims against the DA’s office. When the court
granted Plaintiffs’ motion and entered an order dismissing their
claims against the DA’s office, the court effectively dismissed the
claims brought against Morel and Sins in their official
prosecutorial capacities. The district court therefore erred in
not formally dismissing the claims asserted against Defendants-
Appellants in their official capacities.
We grant the Defendants-Appellants’ motion for rehearing and
now affirm the district court to the extent it granted the
Defendants-Appellants’ motion to dismiss the claims brought against
them in their individual capacities on the grounds that those
claims are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity; however, we
2
Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2312
(1989).
3
reverse that order insofar as it failed to dismiss the claims
brought against the prosecutors in their official capacities and
remand to the district court to enter an order dismissing the
claims.3
MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
3
Three other motions were filed in this matter. Defendant-
Appellants filed a motion to strike the exhibits attached to
plaintiff-appellee’s response to the petition for rehearing. The
Louisiana District Attorney Association filed a motion to file an
amicus brief on behalf of Morel and Sins. Finally, Plaintiff-
Appellee filed a motion for leave to file a response to the
amicus brief of the Louisiana District Attorney Association. The
motion to strike and the motion to file an amicus brief are
denied. Leave to file a response brief is denied as moot.
4