Kentucky v. Graham

What Happened

Respondents were arrested following the warrantless raid of a house in Kentucky by local and state police officers who were seeking a murder suspect. Claiming a deprivation of federal rights from the officers’ use of excessive force and other constitutional violations during the raid, respondents sued under § 1983 seeking money damages. Among the named defendants were the Commissioner of the Kentucky State Police, “individually and as Commissioner,” and the Commonwealth of Kentucky — which was sued only for attorney’s fees if respondents eventually prevailed. The District Court dismissed the Commonwealth as a party based on the Eleventh Amendment. The case settled, and respondents moved for costs and attorney’s fees from the Commonwealth under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

What the Court Decided

In a unanimous decision by Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court reversed the fee award against Kentucky. The opinion laid out the definitive explanation of the individual-versus-official-capacity distinction that governs all § 1983 litigation:

Personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions taken under color of state law. A victory is against the individual. Damages come from the official’s personal assets. To win, you need only show the official caused a deprivation of federal rights under color of law. The official can raise personal immunity defenses (qualified immunity).

Official-capacity suits are “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” The real party in interest is the government entity. A victory is against the entity. To win, you must show the entity’s “policy or custom” played a part in the violation (the Monell requirement). The entity cannot raise qualified immunity (Owen v. City of Independence), but states can raise Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Because this was necessarily a personal-capacity action (the Eleventh Amendment barred official-capacity damages against Kentucky), fees could not be recovered from the Commonwealth. “Fee liability runs with merits liability” — if the entity wasn’t liable on the merits, it isn’t liable for fees.

What It Means in Practice

Kentucky v. Graham is the case every § 1983 plaintiff must understand when deciding whom to sue and how to caption the complaint. Getting this wrong can be fatal:

• Sue an officer in personal capacity → you can get damages from the officer personally, but you face qualified immunity and the government doesn’t pay
• Sue an officer in official capacity → it’s really a suit against the entity, you must prove Monell, no QI defense, but you face Eleventh Amendment if it’s a state
• Sue the municipality directly → same as official capacity against local officials, but municipalities have no Eleventh Amendment immunity

The practical takeaway: always sue both ways — individual capacity to hold the officer personally liable, and the municipality directly for Monell liability. If suing state officials, official-capacity suits for damages in federal court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

How You Can Use It

• Clarify your complaint: Make explicit whether you’re suing in individual capacity, official capacity, or both. “The course of proceedings” will typically indicate the nature of liability, but ambiguity invites problems.
• Key quote: “Personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions he takes under color of state law. Official-capacity suits, in contrast, ‘generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.’” 473 U.S. at 165-166.
• Template: “Plaintiff sues [Officer] in [his/her] individual capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for [description of constitutional violation]. Plaintiff also sues [Municipality] directly under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for [policy/custom/failure to train].”
• Fee recovery: Ensure you have a proper merits claim against the entity from which you seek fees. Fees run with merits liability.

How It Can Be Used Against You

• Wrong capacity = wrong defendant: If you sue a state official in official capacity for damages, the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim. If you sue in personal capacity only, you can’t recover fees from the government.
• No respondeat superior: “A municipality cannot be made liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior basis.” You cannot bootstrap fee liability against the government from a personal-capacity victory against an officer.
• Ambiguous complaints: If your complaint doesn’t specify capacity, courts may construe it against you — particularly if you failed to serve the entity or give it notice.

How to counter: Draft complaints with explicit capacity designations. Name the municipality directly as a defendant for Monell claims. Name officers in their individual capacities for personal liability. This belt-and-suspenders approach preserves all avenues for relief and fee recovery.