claim against the Darby Police Department since the Borough of Darby is the proper defendant); Curry v. Huyett, Civ. No. 93-6649, 1994 WL 111357 at *2 (E.D.Pa.1994) ("The pólice department is merely an arm of the City ... and therefore, the City ... is the only proper defendant.’’); Johnson v. City of Erie, 834 F.Supp. 873, 878-79 (W.D.Pa.1993)(dismissing claims against the City of Erie Police Department as the proper defendant is the City of Erie). Accordingly, we will dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against the Chester County Sheriff's Department. As plaintiffs have sued all of the remaining defendants in their official capacities, however, plaintiffs have essentially sued Chester County. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018
holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state holding that an official capacity suit should be treated as a suit against the entity