You wouldn't believe how much ink has been spilled in the Eleventh Circuit on the question whether a sheriff can be sued in his official capacity. The question depends on whether, in each particular sort of duty in each particular state, the sheriff is viewed as acting on behalf of the county (in which case such a suit can proceed) or on behalf of the State (in which case it's barred by the Eleventh Amendment insofar as it seeks monetary damages).
Now there is yet another such case, Abusaid v. Hillsborough County, involving the sheriff's enforcement of a county ordinance regulating dance halls. The holding is that, in doing this, the sheriff was acting on behalf of the county and therefore there is no Eleventh Amendment immunity. A Florida sheriff is not acting on behalf of the State when he enforces a county ordinance.
The District Court also made the rather obvious error of holding that the county itself was immune from suit on federal claims, based on Eleventh Amendment and/or state law immunity. This is reversed, because counties don't have Eleventh Amendment immunity and state law cannot provide an immunity against suit for violations of federal law.
Finally, there is a very long but ultimately inconclusive footnote about an issue that the Court raised sua sponte: whether the claims are barred by Heck v. Humprhey (which holds, more or less, that there can be no damages under section 1983, when the section 1983 claim necessarily depends on the invalidity of a state law conviction but that conviction has not been set aside).