# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 20 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ram on a Eva ns ,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt ,

v.

Ci ty of Hel en a-West Hele na , Arka ns as ,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Hel en a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 18 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BEAM, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ram on a Eva ns , a res id en t of th e Ci ty of Hele na -West Hele na , Ark an sa s,
ap pe al s th e di sm is sa l of he r cl ai m ag ai ns t th e Ci ty a l l e gi ng a de pr iv at io n of

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. Eva ns as se rts th at th e cl erk ’s of fic e in th e Ph il li ps Co un ty Dis tri ct Co ur t fai le d to do cu m en t th at sh e pa id cert ai n fin es , an d th en req ue st ed is su an ce o f a warra nt for he r arre st

. Her am en de d com pl ai nt al le ge sth at sh e was arre st ed
, he r car was to wed
, an d sh e was he ld at th e po li ce st at io n un ti l

it was di sc ov ered th at sh e ha d pa id th e fin es

. Eva ns as se rts th at th e cl erk ’s fai lu re to do c u men t pa y m en ts ha s be co m e “ a pr act ic e, cu st om an d ha bi t,” an d th e Ci ty’ s

“ un co ns ti tu ti on al po li ci es ” cau se d a de pr iv at io n of h e r l i b ert y an d pr op ert y , ap pa ren tl y in vi ol at io n of th e Due Pro ces s C l au se of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. Eva ns ’s c o mp la in t do es no t sp eci fy whe n th e arre st oc cu rred
, bu t it al le ge dl y ha pp en ed so m et im e b et ween Ju ly 18, 2 01 3, an d J ul y 15 , 20 16

. Se e R. Doc . 2, at 1.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Eva ns ’s co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , wit h

o n e s e n t e n c e o f e x p l a n a t i o n : “Al t h o u g h P l a i n t i f f ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s a r e
tro ub li ng —es pe ci al ly if, as Pl ai nt iff al le ge s, it oc cu rs freq ue nt ly—th e Cl erk an d th e Dis tri ct Co ur t are st at e-g ov ern m en t of fic ia ls who are ne it he r em

pl oyed by Defen da nt,

no r am en ab le to su it .” Evan s ap pe al s.

On th e qu es ti on of am en ab il it y to su it
, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d.
W he th er or no t th e cl erk or th e Ph il li ps Co un ty Dis tri ct Co ur t is “ am en ab le to su it ,” th e Ci ty o f Hel en a-West Hele na is th e d efen da nt , and it ha s n o i m m un it y fro m su it

. Se e Ald en v. Mai ne , 52 7 U.S. 7 0 6
, 75 6 (1 99 9) ; Owen v. Ci ty of In de pe nd en ce , 44 5 U.S. 62 2, 63 8 (1 98 0) ; W

eb b v. Ci ty of Map le w o o d
, 8 8 9 F .3d 48 3, 48 5- 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). W hi le a m

un ic ip al it y can no t be he ld li ab le wit ho ut an un co ns ti tu ti on al act by

a m un ic ip al em

pl oyee, th ere is no req ui rem en t th at th e p l a i n ti ff es ta bl is h th at an

em pl oyee who act ed un co ns ti tu ti on al ly is pe rs on al ly li ab le

. W eb b
, 88 9 F.3 d at 48 7. So ev en if th e cl erk pe rs on al ly h a s a b s ol ut e or qu al ifi ed im m un it y fro m su it an d da m ag es , th at im

m un it y do es no t fo recl os e an act io n ag ai ns t th e Ci ty if th e co m pl ai nt ad eq ua te ly alle ge s an un co ns ti tu ti on al po li cy or cu st om an d an u nc on st it ut io na l ac t by the cle rk as a cit y

em pl oyee.

The di st ric t co ur t’s ot he r rat io na le —t ha t th e cl erk is a st at e go ve rn m en t of fic ia l who se act io ns are n o t a tt rib ut ab le to th e Ci ty—is m or e co m pl ic at ed

. W he th er th e cl erk act s on be ha lf of th e St at e, th e Ci ty, or th e Co un ty de pe nd s on th e de fin it io n of

-2

-th e cl erk ’s of fic ia l fu nc ti on s un de r rel ev an t st at e la w. McMil li an v. Mon ro e Co un ty , 52 0 U.S. 78 1, 78 6 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ; D ea n v. Co un ty of Gag e , 80 7 F.3 d 93 1, 94 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ).

The Ci ty de fen ds th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on ba se d on Am en dm en t 80 to th e Ark an sa s Co ns ti tu ti on

. Tha t Am en dm en t, effe ct iv e in 20 01
, ve st s th e jud ic ia l po wer in th e “ Ju di ci al Dep art m en t of st at e go ve rn m en t, co ns is ti ng of a Su pr em e Co ur t an d

ot he r co ur ts es ta bl is he d by th is Co ns ti tu ti on .” Ark

. Co ns t. am en d. 80
, § 1. Ano th er

se ct io n pr ov id es th at “ Dis tri ct Co ur ts are e s t a bl is he d as th e tri al co ur ts of li m it ed juri sd ic ti on .” Id

. § 7( A). The Ci ty m ai nt ai ns th at be cau se th e Ph il li ps Co un ty Dis tri ct Co ur t was pa rt of th e jud ic ia l de pa rtment of st at e go ve rn m en t , an d th e cl erk was
ap po in te d by a jud ge of th e di st ric t co ur t, th e cl erk ’s act io ns ag ai ns t Eva ns were
at tri bu ta bl e to th e St at e, no t t o t he Cit y

.

Am en dm en t 80
, ho wev er, was no t fu ll y im pl em en te d im m ed ia te ly as t o th e Ph il li ps Co un ty Dis tri ct Co ur t. The Am en dm en t gr an te d th e Gen eral Ass em bl y “ th e
po wer to es ta bl is h juri sd ic ti on of al l co ur t s

. . . a n d t he po wer to es ta bl is h jud ic ia l ci rcu it s an d di st ric ts an d th e nu m be r of jud ge s fo r Ci rcu it Co ur ts an d Dis tri ct Co ur ts .” Id

. § 10

. Alt ho ug h th e le gi sl at ur e pr ov id ed in 20 03 th at Ph il li ps Co un ty wou ld ha ve

a di st ric t co ur t wit h e l e c te d jud ge s, Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 7- 91 7 (West 20 03 ), th e jud ge s were no t st at e em pl o y ees

. As of 20 08
, th e “ st ru ct ur e of li m it ed juri sd ic ti on

co ur ts co ns is t[e d] of a co m bi na ti on of fu ll -ti m e an d pa rt- ti m e di st ric t an d ci ty co ur ts fu nd ed by ci ty an d co un ty go ve rn m en ts [.]” Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 7- 11 01 (2 ) (West 20 08 ).

The Gen eral Ass em bl y th en es ta bl is he d “ a pi lo t p r o gr am th at crea te [d ] a li m it ed nu m

be r of st at e-fu nd e d p i l o t st at e di st ric t co ur t jud ge sh ip s,” id

. § 16 -1 7- 11 01 (8 ), bu t Ph il li ps Co un ty was no t in cl ud ed

. Id

. § 16 -1 7- 11 03

. Ju dg es ou ts id e th e pi lo t pr og ram , li ke th os e in Ph il li ps Co un ty, co nt in ue d to be em pl oyees of th e ci ti es

or co un ti es , or bo th
, th at th ey se rv ed

. Id

. § 16 -1 7- 11 07

. It was no t un ti l 20 17
, aft er

-3

-th e ev en ts al le ge d in Eva ns ’s c o mp l a i nt , th at Ph il li ps Co un ty was on e of se ve ral

co un ti es th at were “ reo rg an iz ed as s ta te di st ric t co ur ts an d s erv ed by a s ta te di st ric t

co ur t jud ge .” Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 7- 11 12 (a)( 1) (West 20 15 ). Unt il th en , Ph il li ps Co un ty was am on g th os e co un ti es th at were “ se rv ed by lo cal di st ric t co ur ts .” Id

. Dur in g th e rel ev an t pe rio d, st at e la w ga ve ci ti es an d co un ti es au th or it y to se t sa la rie s fo r th e di st ric t co ur t cl erk
, se e Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 7- 21 1( b) (West 20 12 ), an d th e

co m pl ai nt al le ge s th at em

pl oyees of th e co ur t were hi red by th e Ci ty an d pa id by th e Ci ty, wit h s al ari es acco un te d fo r in th e Ci ty’ s an nu al bu dg et

.

The di st ric t co ur t res ol ve d th e cas e on a m ot io n to di sm is s, so th e reco rd ha s

no t be en de ve lo pe d wit h res pe ct to th e cl erk ’s du ti es an d res po ns ib il it ie s, th e so ur ce of th e cl erk ’s p ay , o r th e de gr ee of co nt ro l th at st at e or lo cal of fic ia ls
, r e s pe ct iv el y ,
ex erci se d ov er th e cl erk

. Se e McMil li an , 5 2 0 U.S. at 78 9- 93

. At th is st ag e of th e
pr oc eed in g, ho wev er, we co nc lu de th at th e co m pl ai nt st at es at le as t a pl au si bl e cl ai m th at th e cl erk was a ci ty of fic ia l at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d wro ng do in g, in whi ch cas e th e Ci ty co ul d be acco un ta bl e fo r act io ns of th e c l e rk th at es ta bl is h or carr y ou t an

un co ns ti tu ti on al po li cy or cu st om of th e m un ic ip al it y

. W e th eref

or e co nc lu de th at th e

cas e sh ou ld no t ha ve be en di smi s s ed fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m on th e gr ou nd s

s p e c i f i e d by th e di st ric t co ur t. W e ex pr es s no vi ew on whe th er th e co m pl ai n t
ot he rwis e is su ffi ci en t t o s ta te a cl ai m ag ai ns t t he Cit y

.

The jud gm en t is rev ers ed an d th e cas e is rem an de d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

. It is th eref or e un ne ces sa ry to ad dr e s s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Eva ns ’s po st

jud gm en t m ot io n t o a m en d h er co m pl ai nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-