# Brandon v. Holt

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 21, 1985 · 469 U.S. 464

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429824

## Case

- **Full name:** BRANDON Et Al. v. HOLT, DIRECTOR OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF MEMPHIS, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 21, 1985
- **Citations:** 469 U.S. 464; 53 U.S.L.W. 4122; 40 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 861; 105 S. Ct. 873; 83 L. Ed. 2d 878; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 44
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Burger
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Burger, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, White
- **Cited by:** 1,521 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/9429824

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that officials may be shielded by qualified immunity when sued in their individual capacities, but that qualified immunity does not apply to actions brought against officials in their official capacities, because an official capacity suit is a suit against the munic…
- holding, among other things, that “a judgment against a public servant ‘in his official capacity’ imposes liability on the entity that he represents provided, of course, the public entity received notice and an opportunity to respond”
- holding that claims against parties entitled to sovereign immunity must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- concluding that actions of department head in his official capacity are akin to 18 actions of municipality itself
- holding that "a judgment against a public servant 'in his official capacity’ imposes liability on the entity that he represents ...,” provided the governmental entity received notice and an opportunity to respond

## Opinion text

CHIEF Justice Burger,
concurring in the judgment.
This case presents two issues: (1) was the Director of Police, as a matter of law, sued in his official capacity? (2) does a judgment against the Director of Police in his official capacity impose liability against the city?
It does not make a fetish out of orderly procedure to say that if a claimant seeks damages from a municipality, this should be done by making it a named party defendant; that will assure the municipality has notice and an opportunity to respond. At the latest, a claimant should move at the close of the case to amend the pleadings to conform with the proof.
*474 It is an odd business for this Court, the third and final tribunal, to treat the issue in a casual, offhand way; modern pleading is less rigid than in an earlier day, but it is not too much to ask that if a person or entity is to be subject to suit, the person or the entity should be named. I agree with Justice Rehnquist that it is a dubious business to encourage such shoddy pleading practices, but the courts have crossed that bridge. I join only the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429824. Public record. Not legal advice.