Felicia Pellitteri v. Sheriff Chris Prine
776 F.3d 777
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Pellitteri, a deputy sheriff in Lowndes County, injured her knee, requested temporary light duty (an accommodation allegedly routinely given), was denied, and later terminated.
- She sued Lowndes County, the Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Chris Prine (in both his individual and official capacities) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and the ADA.
- Sheriff Prine moved to dismiss, arguing Pellitteri’s § 1983 and ADA claims against him in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
- The district court denied the motion relying on an earlier unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision (Keene v. Prine).
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo whether Prine, when hiring/firing deputies, acts as an “arm of the State” and thus is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- Applying the Manders four-factor, function-specific test (definition under state law; state control; source of funds; liability for judgments), the court found three factors favor immunity and one factor disfavors it, and on balance held Prine immune from Pellitteri’s official-capacity § 1983 and ADA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sheriff Prine is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity § 1983 and ADA claims arising from hiring/firing deputies | Prine is not an arm of the State for personnel decisions; therefore immunity does not bar Pellitteri’s claims | Sheriffs derive authority from the State, perform state-assigned law-enforcement functions, and act as an arm of the State when hiring/firing deputies | Prine is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for these official-capacity claims; dismissal warranted |
| How state law defines the sheriff’s role for the function at issue | Pellitteri: sheriff is a county officer; county-label undermines arm-of-state claim | Prine: Georgia law assigns sheriffs state law-enforcement duties and control; deputies are sheriff’s (state-derived) appointees | The court: state law shows sheriffs exercise state-delegated duties and deputies are appointed under state authority — favors immunity |
| Degree of state control over personnel decisions | Pellitteri: sheriffs have autonomy in hiring/firing | Prine: even with some autonomy, certification, training, state disciplinary powers, and oversight show significant state control | The court: state imposes certification and disciplinary regimes and oversight; favors immunity |
| Effect of funding and liability for judgments | Pellitteri: county funds and independent sheriff budget argue against immunity | Prine: source-of-funds and budget structure do not negate state control; but lack of state-treasury payment of judgments cuts against immunity | The court: funding factor neutral/leans toward immunity because state requires counties to fund sheriffs; payment-of-judgment factor weighs against immunity, but overall balance favors immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) (establishing the four-factor, function-specific arm-of-the-state test)
- Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 405 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of Eleventh Amendment immunity and function-specific analysis)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 208 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2000) (focus on function/role rather than abstract status)
- Grech v. Clayton Cnty., Ga., 335 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (sheriffs as state agents executing state law)
- McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781 (1997) (payment of salary by county does not establish county control)
- Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (Eleventh Amendment’s concern with state-treasury exposure)
- Ross v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep’t of Health, 701 F.3d 655 (11th Cir. 2012) (source-of-funding may not defeat immunity when state law requires county funding)
- United States ex rel. Lesinski v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 739 F.3d 598 (11th Cir. 2014) (state derives and retains ultimate authority over entity’s powers)