He was an employee of the county. I think the link to the state is tenuous. I would go after Nifong personally and the county as respondeat superior. And it is "the people" not "the state" versus the defendant. The wrondoing in this case was limited to the county level.
It makes no sense in adding additional defendants to cloud up the issue. You want one defendant not dozens. If you bring in a dozen defendants you get a dozen closing arguments against your case.
I'm going off of a NY case where a man was wrongfully imprisoned in NY for 22 years after being convicted of rapes he didn't commit. (Instead, a local serial killer did.) The State of New York is the primary defendant, not the local DA's office that convicted him.
Municipalities are usually considered subdivisions of the State for this kind of lawsuit. At least they are around here.
Thanks for insight. But is that offset by the discovery process?
I suspect there is going to be a lot of CYA memos and such which could help focus on the proper (and deeper pockets) defendants. Yes, I do love fishing expeditions.
Actually, no. Counties are instrumentalities of the states. Counties and positions such as Nifongs are set up by State law. It was POTSONC v. Seigalman, et. al., not People of Durham County v. Seigalman...
State is firmly and primarily on the hook.