# McMillian v. Johnson

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · July 9, 1996 · 88 F.3d 1573

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415249

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter McMILLIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.E. JOHNSON, Morris Thigpen, Tom Allen, Marian Shinbaum, Charlie Jones, Et Al., in Their Individual Capacities, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 9, 1996
- **Citations:** 88 F.3d 1573; 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 366; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16266; 1996 WL 379737
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Propst
- **Judges:** Cox, Barkett, Propst
- **Cited by:** 160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415249

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that statements made by witnesses who later recanted those statements in affidavits could not be considered in opposition to summary judgment because “a suggestion that admissible evidence might be found in the future is not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment”
- reasoning there was no indication that the letter in Offshore Aviation could not be reduced to admissible evidence and the record illustrated no impediment to the writer o£ the letter testifying at trial
- explaining that otherwise admissible evidence may be “submitted in inadmissible form at the summary judgment stage, though at trial it must be submitted in admissible form”
- holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial

## Opinion text

PROPST, District Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur in Judge Cox’s well-reasoned opinion. I write separately only to address the opinion in Parker v. Williams, 862 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir.1989).
I recognize that Parker v. Williams apparently holds that Alabama counties and sheriffs are “partners” in the operation of jails. I do not agree that Alabama law provides a reasonable basis for such a holding. I respectfully suggest that sheriffs and counties have independent obligations with reference to jails. The counties’ sole responsibilities, under Alabama law, relate to the jail facilities.
I find no Alabama law which gives counties any authority to run or operate jails. Under Alabama law, the sole authority for “running” or operating jails and hiring jailors is placed with sheriffs. In my opinion, the mere fact that counties provide jail facilities and funds for salaries, etc. does not make them “partners” of the sheriff in the operation of jails. 1 Counties have no more “control” over the “running” or operation of jails than they have over law enforcement by the sheriffs. Sheriffs also “hire and train” law enforcement officers with county funds. My full reasoning is addressed in Turquitt v. Jefferson, County, 929 F.Supp. 1451 , (N.D.Ala.1996).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415249. Public record. Not legal advice.