Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01394-GMS

Document 219

Filed 05/11/2006

Page 1 of 2

THE NEUBERGER FIRM
A TTORNEYS AND C OUNSELLORS AT L AW

TWO EAST SEVENTH STREET SUITE 302 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3707
WWW.N EUBERGERL AW.COM EMAIL: I NFO@N EUBERGERL AW.COM

T HOMAS S . N EUBERGER, ESQUIRE S TEPHEN J . N EUBERGER, ESQUIRE

PHONE: (302) 655-0582 FAX: (302) 655-9329

May 11, 2006 The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet United States District Court District of Delaware 844 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 RE:

Via CM/ECF Filing

Conley v. Chaffinch, et al., Civil Action No. 04-1394-GMS Interplay Between the Eleventh Amendment and State Indemnification Statutes

Dear Judge Sleet: Following up on the Court's request at yesterday's pretrial conference, I have pulled together the law I discussed regarding the interplay between the Eleventh Amendment and state indemnification statutes. I have e-mailed this same law to defendants under separate cover. In addition to the Eleventh Amendment itself, there are a number of Supreme Court cases discussing its immunity principles. See, e.g. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). Similarly, there also is abundant law discussing the differences between individual capacity and official capacity suits. See, e.g. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985) ("Personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions he takes under color of state law."). Lastly, most of the Circuit Courts of Appeals have written on the interplay between the Eleventh Amendment and state indemnification statutes. See Benning v. Bd. of Regents of Regency Univ., 928 F.2d 775, 779 (7th Cir. 1991) (a "state's decision to indemnify its employees does not transform a suit against individual defendants into a suit against the sovereign."); accord Sales v. Grant, 224 F.3d 293, 297-98 (4th Cir. 2000); Hudson v. City of New Orleans, 174 F.3d 677, 687 n.7 (5th Cir. 1999); Jackson v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 16 F.3d 1573, 1577-78 (11th Cir.1994); Wilson v. Beebe, 770 F.2d 578, 587-88 (6th Cir.1985) (en banc); Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1146-48 (9th Cir.1984); Farid v. Smith, 850 F.2d 917, 923 (2d Cir.1988); Griess v. Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 1045-47 (10th Cir.1988).

Case 1:04-cv-01394-GMS

Document 219

Filed 05/11/2006

Page 2 of 2

I am at the Court's disposal to address these issues in greater detail and in argument form if the Court desires.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen J. Neuberger Attorney for Plaintiff cc: Thomas S. Neuberger, Esq. (via CM/ECF) Ralph K. Durstein, Esq. (via CM/ECF) Stephani Ballard, Esq. (via CM/ECF) James E. Liguori, Esq. (via CM/ECF)

Conley \ Letters \ Sleet.12

2