State Marshal (defendant)

The plaintiff, whose real property had been foreclosed on, brought an action against the defendant, a state marshal, alleging that the defendant stole, or allowed to be stolen, numerous items of the plaintiff's personal prop- erty when the defendant executed an order of ejectment at the property subsequent to the foreclosure. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant deprived him of certain of his constitutional rights and committed numer- ous violations of state law, including civil conspiracy and larceny. The defendant thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because no genuine issue of material fact existed. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, concluding, inter alia, that the defendant was entitled to sovereign immu- nity, which deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the defendant was entitled to statutory immunity (§ 6-38a (b)) because there was no evidence of wanton, reckless or malicious conduct on his part. The court thereafter rendered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court improperly concluded that the defendant was entitled to sovereign immunity, as state marshals are not state officials or public officials, and, thus, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not available as a defense to an action against them for tortious conduct: the defendant's status as a state marshal is circumscribed by statute, as the legislature, following the abolition of the system of sheriffs by constitutional amend- ment and the passage of No. 99 of the 2000 Public Acts (P.A. 00-99), specifically designated state marshals as independent contractors who are compensated on a fee for service basis by agreement with an attor- ney, court or public agency, and who may not be a state marshal and a state employee at the same time, irrespective of the nature of the party that