Arnold v. Washington County Sheriff's Department et al, No. 5:2015cv05287 - Document 12 (W.D. Ark. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss; The claims against the Washington County Sheriff's Department are DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on September 2, 2016. (rg)

Download PDF
Arnold v. Washington County Sheriff's Department et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION PLAINTIFF DRANCY ARNOLD v. Civil No. 5:15-cv-5287 SHERIFF TIM HELDER; WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS; and OFFICER T.J. RENNIE, et al. DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff Draney Arnold pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is currently before the Court on the partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) filed by the Washington County Defendants. Arnold has not responded to the motion . I. BACKGROUND According to the allegations of the complaint (Doc. 1}, Arnold was pulled over by Officers T.J. Rennie, Cpl. McDaniel, and Tanner Jones of the Washington County Sheriff's Department without any lawful cause and was then unlawfully detained . Arnold further alleges that he sustained excessive force and was tased in an unreasonable and excessive fashion and for an unreasonable and excessive period of time . Arnold seeks general and special damages against all Defendants. The Defendants move , pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the Complaint as against the Washington County Sheriff's Department as it is not an entity capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, as the Defendants point out, Washington County is already a party defendant to this -1- Dockets.Justia.com lawsuit because it has been named separately and because Sheriff Helder and Defendant Rennie have been sued in their official capacities . II. LEGAL STANDARD A sheriff's department is not a person or a legal entity subject to suit under§ 1983. See e.g., Dean v. Barber, 951F .2d1210 , 1214 (11th Cir. 1992)("[s]heriff's departments and police departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit"); Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F. Supp . 757 (N.D . Ill. 1993)Uail not subject to suit) ; Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 856 F. Supp. 832 , 836 (S.D.N .Y. 1994)("jail is not an entity that is amenable to suit"); In re Scott County Master Docket, 672 F. Supp . 1152, 1163 n. 1 (D. Minn. 1987)(sheriff's department is not a legal entity subject to suit) , aff'd, Myers v. Scott County, 863 F.2d 1017 (8th Cir. 1989). The Eighth Circuit has expressly held that dismissal of a police department is proper in a § 1983 suit because a police department is only a "subdivision of the City" and , therefore, not a "jurisdictional [entity] suable as such ." Ketchum v. City of West Memphis , 974 F.2d 81 , 82 (8 1h Cir. 1992). Likewise , a county Sheriff's Department has been held not to be an entity capable of being sued as it is only a department or subdivision of the county. See e.g. , Brown v. Crittenden County, 2007 WL 4191730 (E .D. Ark. 2007) . Ill. DISCUSSION Under the case law set out above , the Washington County Sheriff's Department should be dismissed as a Defendant to the case at bar. It is not a person or entity subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moreover, due to the inclusion of the official capacity claims against Sheriff Helder and Defendant Rennie and the fact that Washington County, Arkansas has been separately named as a defendant, no prejudice to the Plaintiff will -2- result from the dismissal. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) filed by the Washington County Defendants is GRANTED. The claims against the Washington County Sheriff's Department are DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED on this .J _£_day -3- of Septe

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.