Case Citator › Wells v. Brown

Wells v. Brown

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
891 F.2d 591
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
218 of 218
Citing cases (total)
2,154
Treatment dates
1995–2004
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Three courts declined to follow Wells v. Brown's presumption that a Section 1983 complaint silent about capacity sues officials only in their official capacities. The Fourth Circuit, a Puerto Rico district court, and the Mississippi Supreme Court adopted a contrary approach; their decisions are listed below.
More on how this was screened

All 218 flagged citations have been read. Within the Sixth Circuit, Moore v. City of Harriman applied Wells's notice requirement while considering the complaint and course of proceedings.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,154 later cases cite Wells v. Brown; 218 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Wells v. Brown?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Fourth Circuit rejected Wells's official-capacity presumption and held that a Section 1983 plaintiff need not expressly plead an official's capacity.

    Biggs v. Meadows · Fourth Circuit · filed

    In contrast, two Circuits — the Sixth and the Eighth — utilize the presumption applied by the district court in this case: where a § 1983 complaint is silent as to capacity, it is presumed that a defendant has been sued only in her official capacity. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592 (6th Cir.1989); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir.1989). ... Because we find the majority view to be more persuasive, we hold today that a plaintiff need not plead expressly the capacity in which he is suing a defendant in order to state a cause of action under § 1983.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • A Puerto Rico district court rejected Wells's express-capacity pleading rule and allowed the complaint and course of proceedings to show individual-capacity notice.

    Pieve-Marin v. Combas-Sancho · D.P.R. · filed

    This Court finds the majority view more persuasive in the context of today’s liberalized pleading requirements. ... The absence of an explicit statement of capacity does not constitute “let[ting] down all pleading barriers” as suggested in Wells, 891 F.2d at 593. A plaintiffs allegations must still be sufficient to give the defendant notice that he is being sued in his individual capacity.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Mississippi Supreme Court adopted a three-factor inquiry for Section 1983 capacity claims instead of Wells's express-pleading rule.

    East Mississippi State Hospital v. Callens · Supreme Court of Mississippi · filed

    Still others impose a more rigid pleading requirement. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592 (C.A.6 1989) (§ 1983 plaintiff must specifically plead that suit for damages is brought against state official in individual capacity); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (C.A.8 1989) (same). ... Thus, for § 1983 actions, three factors emerge as crucial in a determinating whether defendants have been sued in their personal (individual) or official capacities. The factors are: (1) allegations in the complaint, (2) nature of relief sought, and (3) nature of defenses pled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wells v. Brown and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace