Case Title: State v. Green

Citation: 633 P.2d 1381

Docket Number: 

State: alaska

Court: Alaska Supreme Court

Date: 1981-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
633 P.2d 1381 (1981) STATE of Alaska and Alaska Psychiatric Institute, Petitioners, v. Mattie GREEN, Respondent. No. 5834. Supreme Court of Alaska. October 2, 1981. William B. Mellow and John B. Gaguine, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for petitioners. Ronald T. West, Anchorage, for respondent. Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and CONNOR, BURKE, MATTHEWS and COMPTON, JJ. PER CURIAM. On May 21, 1981, this court entered an order granting the state's petition for review and summarily reversing the superior court's order reinstating Green's claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970). In this opinion we set forth the reasons for our order. Green filed suit against the state and the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (A.P.I.), alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970)[1] and of her constitutional rights. The state and A.P.I. moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither were a "person" within the meaning of section 1983. The motion was granted. Upon Green's motion for reconsideration, however, the dismissal was set aside and the complaint was reinstated. The state and A.P.I. then sought reconsideration of that order, which was denied. This petition for review followed. We granted the petition only as to the issue of whether the superior court erred in reinstating Green's section 1983 claim for relief. We concluded that the United States Supreme Court opinion in Quern v. Jordan, *1382 440 U.S. 332, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1979), mandates the dismissal of Green's claim for relief under section 1983. We interpret Quern v. Jordan as holding not only that section 1983 does not abrogate the state's eleventh amendment immunity, but as holding that states are not "persons" within the meaning of the section. The only other state appellate court to consider this issue thus far has reached the same conclusion. In Edgar v. State, 92 Wash. 2d 217, 595 P.2d 534 (1979) (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1077, 100 S. Ct. 1026, 62 L. Ed. 2d 760 (1980), the Washington Supreme Court analyzed the issue as follows: 595 P.2d at 537. We find this analysis persuasive. If Green's arguments were accepted, it would be necessary to assume that Congress intended the word "person" in section 1983 to include states for the purpose of suits in state courts but not for the purpose of overriding the states' eleventh amendment immunity from suits in federal courts. Although this interpretation is possible, we believe it is beyond the province of this court to place such an interpretation on section 1983 in the absence of any indication that this is what Congress intended. The order of the superior court reinstating Green's claim for relief under section 1983 is accordingly REVERSED. RABINOWITZ, C.J., dissents. RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority's summary reversal of the superior court's decision, because I take issue with the majority's interpretation of Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1979). Although the approach of the majority here is in accordance with Justice Brennan's concurring opinion in that case, characterizing Justice Rehnquist's opinion as holding that a state cannot be a "person" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983, Justice Rehnquist's opinion in fact carefully avoids that issue, instead holding that Congress did not, in enacting § 1983, utilize its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the States' immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, Quern's holding only becomes relevant when the Eleventh Amendment issue is raised, which is not the case here; this suit is in state, not federal, court. Under Justice Rehnquist's approach, the states are free to render themselves amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983; under Justice Brennan's approach, this is not the case. I think Justice Rehnquist's approach, besides being entitled to more weight as a majority ruling, is also more compatible with the Court's dictum in Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782, 98 S. Ct. 3057, 3058, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1114, 1116 (1978), to the effect that Alabama would be able to *1383 waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 suit were it not for a state constitutional provision to the contrary. I am bolstered in this conclusion by the reasoning in the recent case of Marrapese v. State of Rhode Island, 500 F. Supp. 1207 (D.R.I. 1980), which noted this very conflict and adopted the Rehnquist approach in holding that Rhode Island had statutorily rendered itself amenable to a § 1983 suit in federal court. The opinion notes: 500 F. Supp. at 1211-12 (footnotes and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). The issue before this court is not as difficult as Marrapese, since we deal here with a suit against the state in state court, not in federal court. I think that the Eleventh Amendment has no bearing on this issue, and thus the ruling of Quern does not control. If Rhode Island is a "person" within the meaning of § 1983, Alaska is no less a person. Alaska's own statutory provision regarding amenability to suit is the pertinent consideration here. I would remand for consideration of whether AS 09.50.250 allows this suit to go forward in the superior court. [1] 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970) provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.