What would most likely happen if a private citizen felt the governor of a state did something he should be held accountable for in a civil suit? Would that be construed as suing the state itself or would it simply be John Doe v Gov. Rich Roe?
What if the private citizen waited a few years for the current governor to leave office?
I think public officials are generallyimmune for official actions taken as part of their legal duties. There might be some limitations, like for false arrest or harassment.
I’m betting this has to do with the plausibility of Michael Schiavo suing Jeb Bush for harassment because of the recent directive to the state attorney-general to look into the circumstances behind the 911 call that was made after Terri collapsed…
In general, anyone can be sued for whatever someone else can make a case for filing a suit. If I feel, and can adduce some evidence, that the Governor’s official actions “caused me injury,” (i.e., I lost something of value as a result), then I can sue him.
A large proportion of jurisdictions (states, counties, cities, towns) have adopted “hold harmless” laws which provide that an official acting legally in his official capacity is defended by the state/municipality from any such suits. Before such laws, a minority of court cases held that suits against officials acting in their official capacity were barred under the old ‘the king can do no wrong’ doctrine. Most cases, however, held that this was inequitable. However, hold harmless laws are definitely justifiable under that doctrine.
Quite a few cases, however, have been decided on the basis that the official, claiming to be acting in his official capacity, was actually acting ultra vires and therefore not entitled to hold harmless protection. Rather, he was culpable in his own person for acts beyond his legal powers.