Moler v. Belt

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 01-31375
_______________________
CRAIG MOLER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM BELT, as duly elected
Sheriff and Chief Policy Maker
of Avoyelles Parish,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
Civil Docket 99-2395-A
_________________________________________________________________
December 19, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH and SILER,* Circuit Judges.
SILER, Circuit Judge.**
Sheriff William Belt appeals the district court’s denial of
summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We dismiss this
appeal for lack of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.
*
Circuit Judge of the 6th Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
It is the obligation of this court to examine the issue of
jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Castaneda v. Falcon, 166
F.3d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1999). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have
jurisdiction to hear an appeal only from a final decision of the
district court. The Supreme Court has held that “a district
court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that
it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final’ decision
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence
of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530
(1985). We have clarified, however, that “[a]lthough a state or
its officers sued in their official capacities may raise immunity
defenses on interlocutory appeal, a municipal government may not.”
Skelton v. Camp, 234 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 2000). A suit against
a sheriff in his official capacity is a suit against the Parish.
Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff’s Dep’t., 228 F.3d 388, 392 (5th
Cir. 2000). Therefore, we may not review a district court’s denial
of summary judgement with respect to a sheriff sued in his official
capacity. Id.
When questioned during oral argument, counsel for the
plaintiff indicated that Sheriff Belt was being sued in his
official capacity. Our review of the complaint confirms this
assertion. The complaint specifically states that “Defendant Belt,
in the official capacity as Sheriff and custodian of prisoners
. . . tolerated and allowed . . . customs, policies and practices
2
to exist which . . . directly and proximately caused the
deprivation of the civil and constitutional rights of plaintiff
. . . .” Therefore, because Sheriff Belt is not being sued in his
individual capacity, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3