Rodney Murphy v. Commonwealth of Virginia
This text of Rodney Murphy v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Rodney Murphy v. Commonwealth of Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1253 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1253
RODNEY J. MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, in the official and individual capacity; LOUDOUN COUNTY, in the official and individual capacity; LOUDOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in the official and individual capacity; LOUDOUN COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT, in the official and individual capacity; GLENDA BLAKE, Department of Social Services Director, in the official and individual capacity; JUDY LEW, in the official and individual capacity; LYLE DAVIDSON, in the official and individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00337-RDA-TCB)
Submitted: September 23, 2022 Decided: December 7, 2022
Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney J. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1253 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Rodney J. Murphy appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions
to dismiss Murphy’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Murphy filed suit against three state
defendants—the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Loudoun County Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Court, and Judy Lew, a Virginia Department of Social Services
employee (collectively, “Commonwealth Defendants”)—as well as Loudoun County and
various county defendants (collectively, “County Defendants”). Murphy alleged in his
complaint that Defendants deprived him of his parental rights and violated his rights to due
process and equal protection, stemming primarily from their failure to provide him with
information about his daughter, who was left with the Loudoun County Department of
Social Services by her birth mother in 2007 to be adopted. The district court dismissed
Murphy’s claims against the Commonwealth Defendants for lack of jurisdiction pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed his
claims against the County Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim. Murphy challenges, in two informal briefs, the district court’s dismissal of
his claims for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in
part, and remand.
As an initial matter, we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in
Murphy’s two informal briefs. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Murphy does not challenge
the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), of his claims against the County
Defendants, we conclude that he has forfeited appellate review of that aspect of the court’s
order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is
2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-1253 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 3 of 5
an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues
preserved in that brief.”).
However, Murphy does challenge that portion of the district court’s order
dismissing his claims against the Commonwealth Defendants. We review de novo the
district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) of the claims against the Commonwealth
Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v.
Mayor & City Council of Balt., 855 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2017). Dismissal under Rule
12(b)(1) is appropriate “if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving
party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States
shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of
any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend XI. Sovereign immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment protects the States, their agencies, and state officials acting in their official
capacities from being sued in federal court without their consent. Allen v. Cooper, 895
F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2018). However, such immunity does not extend to suits under
§ 1983 against state officials who are sued in their individual capacities. See Hafer v. Melo,
502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991).
“Suits against state officials in their official capacity . . . should be treated as suits
against the State”; therefore, “[b]ecause the real party in interest in an official-capacity suit
is the governmental entity and not the named official, the entity’s policy or custom must
have played a part in the violation of federal law.” Id. at 25 (internal quotation marks
3 USCA4 Appeal: 21-1253 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 4 of 5
omitted). “Personal-capacity suits, on the other hand, seek to impose individual liability
upon a government officer for actions taken under color of state law.” Id. Thus, “to
establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting
under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right,” and “the plaintiff in a
personal-capacity suit need not establish a connection to governmental policy or custom.”
Id. (cleaned up). Indeed, § 1983 was enacted to “enforce provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment against those who carry a badge of authority of a State and represent it in some
capacity, whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it.” Id. at 28
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Upon a review of the record, and applying these principles, we discern no error in
the district court’s conclusion that Murphy’s claims against both the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the Loudoun County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, as well
as against Lew in her official capacity, are barred under the Eleventh Amendment.
However, Murphy also sued Lew in her individual capacity, seeking both compensatory
and punitive damages from her. While the “mere incantation of the term ‘individual
capacity’ is not enough to transform an official capacity action into an individual capacity
action,” Adams v. Ferguson, 884 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks
omitted), here, in addition to asserting that Lew had denied him access to the child’s
records, informed him that his parental rights had been terminated, denied him paternity
testing, and otherwise denied his rights to due process, Murphy also alleged in his
complaint that Lew “conspired with [the] County of Loudoun and other State agents to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rodney Murphy v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-murphy-v-commonwealth-of-virginia-ca4-2022.