## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2190 C ARL A S KEW, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. S HERI FF OF C OOK C OUN TY, I LLINO IS, a nd B E R NA RDO L OPEZ, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C4530

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Judge
.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 31, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AY 18, 2009

B efore F LA UM, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C i rcui t Judge. I n A ug us t 2004, app ell an t C arl A sk ew w as a p re tr i a l d et ain ee atth e C oo k C ou n ty Jail. A ske w al l ege s that, du ri ng hi s i ncarc er ati on, offi cer Bernar do Lopez t h re w hi m to the gr ound w i thout provo ca ti o n a nd, a fte r Ask ew a sked to b e tr an sfer r ed to a nothe r divi si on i n the j ai l f orfearo fhar m fro m Lopez an d o t he r g ua r ds , de l ib e r a t e l y l e ft hi m a l o ne wi th othe r i n m a t e s w h o l a t e r s t a b b e d h i m. I n A ugust 2 006, A ske w2 N o. 07

- 2190 fi l ed thi s ci vi l r i ghts l aw sui t, al l egi ng ex c essi ve f or ce a nd de l ib e r a t e i nd i ff e r e nc e c l a i ms a g a i ns tLo pez and a m unici pal l i abi l i ty cl ai m agai nst the S heri ff

. The di str i ct cour t g ra nted def endants’ m oti on t o dism i ss the c ase f or fa ilure to j oin a pa rty un d er F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 19. Dis m iss al, how eve r, i s no t the r em edy thatRule 19 pre scr ibes f or th e p robl em her e. W e there f or e r eve rs e a nd r em and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs.

I Ask ew f il ed hi s cl ai m o n Aug us t 21 , 2 00 6, na m i ngthe She riff, Lop ez, and “U nid en tified C ook C ou nt y Sheriff’s Offi ce Corr ecti onal Offi cer s” as defe nd ants. I n hi s init i al com pla i nt, A skew al l ege d tw o theo ri es ofr el i efunder 42 U

. S. C. § 1 983: fir st, that“the i nd i vi du aldefendant” ( presum abl y Lopez) vi ol ate d his c on stituti onalr i ghts by su b j ec tin g h im to ex c es siv e fo rc e, an d se c on d , th at th is pe r s o n e xh ib i t e d del ib e r a t e i nd i ff e r e nc e t o h i s s a f e t y . On A ugust 2 2, 200 6, A skew apparent l y r eal i zed thathe ha d not i nd icated i n w ha t w ay either th e un iden t if ie d officers or the Sh eriff ha d i nfringed his ri gh t s, an d he th erefore fi l e d a fi r s ta me n d e d c o mp l a i n t
. T h e fi r s ta me n d e d c o mpla i nt m odi fi ed counts Iand I Iso thatthey w er e now a g a i ns t“ t he i nd i v i du a l de f e nd ant s , ” a nd i ta dde d a th i r d c o untb as ed o n M one l l v. Ne w York C ity D ept
. of So cia l Serv s., 4 36 U. S

. 6 58 ( 19 78 ) , a gainst the S he r i ff

. The M onell c l ai m a l l eg ed th atthe a ct i o ns of L o pez a nd the uni denti fi ed offi cer s were tak en p u rs uant to de f acto p o l i c i e s o r c u s t o ms o fth e S h e r i ff’ s o ffi c e . O n N o v e mbe r 2 , 2 00 6, wi thl ea ve o fthe c o ur t, Ask ew fi l ed a se co ndN o. 07

- 2190 3

am en d ed co m p lain t, in w h i c h h e d ro p p ed th e u n id en tif i ed o f fi c e r s f r o m h i s c l a i m, l e a v i n g o n l y L o p e z a n d t he Sher i f fas d efendants. Fo l l owing defe nd ants’ m oti on f or a m or e defi ni te sta tem ent a nd o nce ag ai n w i th l eave o fthe c o ur t, Ask ew fi l ed a th ird amende d c o m pl ai nt cl ar i fyi ng that h i s § 19 83 cl ai m s were base d on al l ege d viol ati ons ofthe Eighth and Four tee nth A m endm ents of the U. S. Consti tuti on. On J anuary 31 , 20 07, defendants fi led a m otion u n d e r F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 12( b) ( 7) , i n w hi ch they ask ed the cour t to di sm i ss A ske w ’ s thi rd am ended com pla i nt be c au se h e had notj oi ned Cook County as a par tyt o the a ct i o n. The dis tr i ct c ourtag re ed that C oo k County’ s pre sence w as re quir ed und erRule 19. T hi s, i t thought, m eant that th e ac ti o n h ad to b e di smi ss ed o ut r i g ht

. I n so ho l di ng, the co ur t r el i ed o n the de ci si on i n C arverv. Sher if f of LaSalle C o u nty, 324 F.3d 947 ( 7th Cir. 2003) (“ C arverII” ) , wh i ch he l d th ati n a c l ai m a g ai ns t a S he r i ffi n I l l i no i s th e r el evan t co unty i s a r equi r ed par ty
. The r efo r e, the dist ri ct c ourtr eas oned, bec ause the S heri ffwas nam ed as a d efendant i n A ske w ’ s a cti on, CookCounty was an “i nd i spensabl e” party
. A ske w ’ s f ailur e to nam e Coo k Cou n ty as a defendant, i t co ncl ud ed, was an o m i ssi on r equi r i ngdi smi ss alo fthe a ct i o n.

II Thi s co ur t ha s y et to dec i de whethe r t o r ev i ew de ci si o ns applyi ng Rul e 1 9 deno vo o r f o r an ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n. D a vis C o m pa nies v . E m erald C a sino , Inc., 268 F. 3d 477 ( 7th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); Tho m a s v. U nited Sta tes , 18 9 F

. 3d 662, 66 6 ( 7th4 N o. 07

- 2190 C ir. 19 99 ); N o rth S ho re G a s C o . v. Salo m o n, Inc., 15 2 F

. 3d 642, 6 4 8 (7t h C ir. 19 98 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s ex re l

. Ha l l v . Tr i b a l De v. C o rp., 100 F.3d 476 , 478 (7th C ir. 1996) (co ll ectin g cases ). Because the di str i ct c ourtm ade a l ega l er ro r i n i ts anal ysi s, however, o ur a pp ro ach i n the prese nt cas e wo u l d b e th e s a me u n d e r e i th e r s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w. W e th er efo r e po st po ne o nc e ag ai n the r es o l ut i o n ofthe qu e s t i o n o f t he pr o pe r s t a nd a r d o f r e v i e w i n Ru l e 1 9 case s f oro ne wh er e that i ssue m att er s t o the o utcom e. T h e p u rp os e o f R u l e 1 9 is to “p er m it join d er of all m ate ri al l y i nter est ed parti es to a s i ngl e l aw sui t s o as to prot ect i nter est ed parti es and a voi d waste of j ud i ci al re sour ces. ” M o o re v . Ash la nd O il, Inc., 901 F. 2d 1445 , 14 47 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90 ). D i sm i ssa l, however, i s no t the pre f er re d outco m e under the Rul es. Court s a re “re l uctant to di smi ss f o r f ai l ur e to j o i n whe r e do i ngs o d ep r i ve s th e pla i nt iffo fhi s cho i ce o ffedera l f or um . ” D a vis C o m pa nies , 268 F. 3d at 481. Bef or e turni ng to the speci fi cs o f A ske w ’ s ca se , a bri efr evi ew o fthe str ucture ofRule 19 is u se fu l. Ever si nce the 19 66 am en dm ents to the Rul e, i t has dr a wn a fun dame nt a l di s t i nc t i o n b e t we e n t wo k i nd s o fmis si ngpa r ti es : tho se who se j o i nde r i s f ea sibl e an d th os e w h os e join d er is n ot f e a sib le, be c au se it w ou ld defea t su bj ec t- m at te r j ur i sdi ct i o n, o r the pa r tyi s be y o nd the per sona l j uri sdic ti on o fthe cour t, o r the par ty has and m ak es a val i d obj ecti on t o venue. Rule 19 ( a) addr es se s “pe r so ns r equi r ed to b e j o i ne d i ffea sibl e, ” an d Rule 19( b) descr ibes w h at t h e co urt m ust do i fj oi nd er is not feasibl e. T he first step , how ever, i s to i d en tifyN o. 07

- 2190 5

w hi ch part i es ( i fany) f al l withi n the sco p e ofthe rul e. Rule 19( a) ( 1) defi nes who i s a “r equi re d party ”: ( 1) R eq uir ed Party. A per son w ho i s s ubj ect to ser vi ce of proce ss and whose j oi nd er w i l l not d ep ri ve the c ourt o f subj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on m ust be j oined as a pa rty i f: ( A ) i n that perso n’s a b sence, the cour t ca nnot acco rd com ple te re l i efam ong exi sti ng par ti es; o r ( B) tha t per so n c l ai m s ani nt er es t r el at i ngt o the subj ect of t h e acti on a nd i s s o si tuate d that di sposi ng ofthe acti on in the p er son’ s absence m ay: ( i ) a s a pr ac ti ca l matt eri m p air or i m pede the perso n’s abi l i ty to prot ect the inter est; o r ( i i ) l eave an e x ist i ng par ty subj ect to a s ubsta nti alr i sk ofincurr i ng d oubl e, m ult i ple , o r othe rwise i nconsi ste nt o bl i gat i ons because ofthe i nter est
. Once such a partyhas been i denti fi ed, the Rul e pr escr ibes whatthe c o ur t m us t do

. N ote th ata s par t o fthe Rule 19( a) ( 1) i nquir y, the cour t has al re ady co nsi dered w hetherth e ab sente e i s a per son w ho i s s ubj ect to ser vi ce o fp ro cess and w hose j oi nd erwil l notdepri ve the c ourto fsubj ect- m att erj uri sdic tion. Fo r the s et of abse nt e e s wh o me e ttho s e c r i t e r i a , i ti s R ul e 1 9 ( a ) ( 2) that speci fi es the c or re ct res ponse bythe cour t, not Rule 19( b)

. Rule 19 ( a) ( 2) sa ys that “[ i ]f a perso n has no t be enj oined as r equi r ed, the c o ur t m us t o r dertha t th e perso n be m ade a p ar ty
. A per son w ho r efuses to j oi n as a pl ai nt i ffm ay be made e i th era de f en dan t o r, i n a6 N o. 07

- 2190 propercas e, an i nvol un tar y pl ai nti ff

. ” F i nal l y, o nce su c h a pe r s o n ha s b e e n b r o ught i nt o the c a s e , i f the new partyr ai ses a val i d obj ecti on to ve nue ( an unl i kel y e vent, n ow th at 28 U .S.C . § 13 91 (a)( 3) p er m its , a s a d efa u lt ve nue i n di versi tyc as es , a di st r i cti n whi chthe d efe n d a n t is su bj ect to p erson al j urisd iction), the cou rt m us t d ism iss that p arty. R ule 19(a)(3)

. Onl y i fthe co ur t det er m i ne s th ata pa r tymeet s th e cri ter i a o fRule 19 ( a) ( 1) ( A ) and (B ), b ut the partycannot be j oined ( usual l y b ecause j oi nd erwould destr oy com ple te dive rs i ty orthe cour t l acks p er sonalj uri sdi ct i o n o ve r i t) mustthe c o ur t tu r n to R ule 19 ( b) a nd deci de w h at t o do abo ut the probl em . Even the n, di sm issal is not au tom atic. In stead , the cou rt m us t “d eterm i ne wh ether, in equi ty and goo d consci ence, the acti on sh ou ld p ro c ee d am on g th e e x ist in g p ar tie s o r sh ou ld be d ism issed

. ” Ru le 19 (b) sp ell s out f acto rs forthe cou rt to co n sid er in m ak in g t h at j u d gm en t, w it h a n em p h as is on p ractical m easu res tha t w il l all o w either the en tire s ui to r p a r to fi tt o g o f o r wa r d. The d ist ri ct c ourti n the prese nt cas e f ound that Coo k County w as a par ty that sh ou ld be j oi ned i n the acti on un de r R ul e 1 9 ( a ) b e c a us e “ the S he r i ff

. . . i s i nc l ud ed as a Defendant in t hi s a cti on, [ and the S heri ff ] i s a n el ec te d o f fi ci al

. ” The c o ur t th enj um ped to the c o nc l usi o n tha t “the r e i s no way t o r ea so nabl y s tr uctur e th e i nstant acti on i n a fa sh i on that would e nsure the r i ghts o fthe Co unty a r e pr o te ct ed i n i ts abs en ce, ” an d i t co nsequentl y di sm i sse d the ac tio n in i ts enti re ty. I n so doi ng, the cour t m i sund er sto od Rule 19 i n sev er alr espect s.N o. 07

- 2190 7 The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s fi rs t e rr orwa s to ski p ove r Rul e 19 ( a) ( 2) a l to g ethe r . The thi r d a m en ded com p lai nt th a tAs k e w fi l e d n a me d t wo p a r t i e s : L o p e z a n d the Sher i f fo fCookCounty. The m i ssi ng par ty w hose j oin d er w as re q u ire d , b as ed on th is cou rt ’s d ec isi o n in Carve r II, w a s C ook C ou nt y i tself. H ad the d istri ct cou rt asked t he questi ons w hetherthe prese nce o fCook County i n the sui t would dest ro y i ts subj ect- m att erj uri sdict i on i n thi s § 1 983 acti on a nd wh etherthe County w as su bj ect to s e rvice of p rocess from the N orthe rn D istri ct of I ll inois, bo t h a n sw ers w ou ld h ave be en clear: n o, and yes. W ith th at m uc h est ablished , the cou rt woul d ha ve move d t o Rul e 19 ( a) ( 2) a nd o r der ed th e j oi nd ero fthe County as a thir d defendant. The County w oul d have had no concei vabl e d efense to ve nue, wh i ch i s pr o peri n afede r al

- que st i o n c as e wher e ( among othe r pla ces) a substa nti alpart o f the eve nts g i vi ng r i se to the c l ai m o ccurr ed ( here , the Cook County j ai l, wh i ch sits i n th e N orthe rn D istri ct of I ll inois), and so there w o ul d h a v e b e e n no o c c a s i o n t o di s mi s s under Rule 19(a ) ( 3)

. The cas e then coul d (a nd sho uld) have proce eded to the m er i ts. Eve n i f, c o unt er f actua ll y , the r e m i g htha ve b ee n a probl e m b r i ng i ng i n the Co un t y , the c o ur t e r r e d b y tr ea tin g A sk ew ’s c laim ag ai n st L op ez an d h is c laim aga i ns t th e defendant Sher i ffas o ne and the sam e. J ust because C arverIIes tabl i sh es that Cook County i s a r eq u ire d par ty i nsof ar as A ske w i s sui ng the Sher i ff, it does not necess ar i l y f ol l ow that th e C ou nty i s a l so a re q u i re d p ar ty ins ofa r as A sk ew is su in g L op ez in h is in d ivid u al c ap ac ity . For t h is p u rp os e, th e ra ti o n a le8 N o. 07

- 2190 b e hi nd C arverII i s i m po r ta nt
. The r e, f o l l o wi ngthe I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t’ s ho l di ngi n Carv e rv. Sh e r i f f of LaSa ll e C ounty, 2 0 3 I l l

. 2 d 4 9 7( 2 0 0 3 ) ( whi c h a ns we r e d a que st i o n c er ti fi ed bythi s co ur t i n Ca r ve rv. Sh e r i f f of La Sa l l eCounty, 243 F.3d 379 ( 7th Cir. 2001) (“ C a rver I”)), w e hel d that 745 I LC S 10/9-10 2 r equi re d a co unty t o pay for a j u d gm en t e n te re d ag ain st th e c o u n ty sh er iff in h is offic ial c ap ac ity

. C arverII , 32 4 F .3d at94 8. I l l i noi s l aw est ab lish es that the S heri ffi s a n “i nd ependentl y e l ecte d c ou n ty off ice r an d is n ot an em p loy ee of th e c ou n ty in w h ich the sher i f fse rv es. ” C a rver, 78 7 N

. E.2 d at 1 36; Ill. C on st .19 70 , art . VII, § 4(c ); M oy v . County of Cook, 15 9 I l l

. 2d 519 (19 94 ). It i s the r esponsibi l i ty ofthe Sher i ffto ap p oint an d hire dep ut ies (55 ILC S 5/3-6008 (W est 200 0)), to ac t a s c u st od ian of th e c ou n ty co u rt h ou s e a n d j ail (55 I L C S 5/3-6017 (W est 200 0)), a n d t o a ct as th e cou nt y’s su per vi so r o fs afety ( 55 I LCS 5/3- 60 35 ( W est 2 00 0) )

. The Sher i f f’ s o f fi ce i s fi nanced by pu bl i c fund s, appropr i ate d to th at offic e b y C oo k C ou n ty . See , e . g. , 55 I LC S 5/4- 6003 ( W est20 00) ( the c ounty boar d “shal l fi x the com pensation of sh eriffs, w ith th e am ou nt of th eir n eces sary clerk hi r e , s t a t i o ne r y , fue l, a nd o the r e xp e ns e s ” ) ; 5 5 I LCS5/ 5- 1 1 0 6 ( W e s t2 0 0 0 ) ( coun t y b o a r d o b l i g a t e d t o “ pr o v i de pr o perr o o m s an d o ffi ce s f o r the a cc o m m od at i o n” o fthe sher i f f, as wellas “r eas onabl e a nd nece ssa ryexpenses for th e u se of th e s h e r i ff”) . Th u s, “a co u n ty in Illin ois is a ne c es sa ryparty i n any sui t s eek i ng dam age s fro m an i nd ependentl y e lec ted co unty o ffi cer. . . [ and] [ b] ecause s t a t e l a w r e q u i r e s th e c o u n t y to pa y , fe d e r a l l a w d e e ms it an i nd i spensabl e par ty to the l i ti gat i on. ” C arverII , 32 4 F. 3d at 948.N o. 07

- 2190 9 W hi l e thi s ho l ding est ablish es that the County i s a re quir ed party f or A ske w ’ s sui t aga i nst the S heri ff, i t doe s not answ erthe an alyt i cal l y di sti nct quest i on wh ether th e C ou n ty is sim ilar ly re q u ir e d f or A sk ew ’s s u it ag ain stL op ez , w h ich w as br ou gh t ag ain st h im in h is in d i v i d u al c ap ac ity . L op ez arg u es th at th e C ou n ty is st ill “i nd i spensabl e, ” r eas oni n g th at i fther e i s a to rtj ud gm en t ent er ed against L op ez, the Sheriffm us t ind em nify him , and that i f th e Sheriffm us t pa y , t he Cou nt y’s interest s are aut o m a ticall y i m p li cate d

. Th e Sheriff’s obl i gat i ons ar e gov er ned by 745 I LC S 10/ 9- 102, wh i ch re ads as f ol l ows: A l oca l publi c ent i ty i s e m pow er ed and dir ecte d to pay any to rtj ud gm en t o r set tl em ent f orco m pensato ry d am ag es for w h i c h it or a n em p loy ee w h ile ac tin g w ith in th e s c op e o f em p lo y m en t is liab le in the m anner provi ded i n thi s Arti cl e. Defen dan ts a r g ue tha t becau se , unde r s ta te l aw, the County w i l l nece ssa ri l y b e the e n tit y funding any j ud gm en t e n te re d ag ain st L op ez , th is c as e is d ire c tly analogous to the C a rver case s and thu s the Cou nt y’s j oin d er w ou ld be req u ire d ev e n i fth e c as e w er e s ole ly aga i nst Lopez. This ar gum ent has som e s up er fi ci al appe al : i fthi s we re a su i t i m po singl i ab i l i tyo n the S he r i f ff or L op ez ’ s ac ti o ns , the n the r e woul d b e no e s c a p e fr o m Carve r II . But i t i s no t. A ske w ’ s s uitag ai nst th e Sh er iff ca n n ot be on e s ee kin g t o h old h im liab le un d er a theory of r e s pond e ats upe r i or f or Lope z’s act i ons. M onell and a host o f la t e r cases firm ly estab li sh that there i s no respo nd eat su perio r l i abi l i ty und er§ 1 98 3. Se e M onell,10 N o. 07

- 2190 436 U

. S. at69 4- 95. S ee al so M oy, 15 9 I l l

. 2d, 159 I l l

. 2d at 930 ( h o l d i n gth a ta c o u n t y i s n o tv i c a r i o u s l y l i a b l e f o r t he action s of a she riff’ s d ep ut y). Th at m ean s tha t A skew ’s sui t i s a sim ple one agai nst L opez i n hi s i nd i vi du alcapaci ty. A ny j ud gm ent e nter ed w oul d be a gai nst Lopez al one, with ou t r ega rd to any col l ate ra l so urces to wh i ch Lopez m i ght turn to fund thatj ud gm ent. A clo se r loo k a t t h e S h e r i f f ’ s a rg u m en t re ve als th at it is p re m at u re . I f A sk ew w in s a ga in st L op ez , a n d th en if Lopez l ate r tr i es to co l l ect f ro m the Sher i ffi n supp l em en ta l p ro c ee d in g s , it w ou ld th en be n ec es sa ry to j oin th e Cou nt y a s a pa r tyt o tho se l at erpr o ce edi ng s. But that day m ay neverco m e. Fo r the pr ese nt, the County does notbec om e a n “i nd i spensabl e” partyj ust be cause i t m ayne ed to i nd emni fy the S he r i ffi n the fut ur e, a ny m or e than an i nsurance com pany m us t be i ncl ud ed as a defe nd ant i n a s uit agai nst i ts i nsured. W e co ncl ud e, th eref or e, thatthe County i s no t a party that m ust be j o i ne d i ffea sibl e, wi th i n the mean i ng of Rul e 19 , i n a case br ought aga i nst the Sher i ff i n hi s i nd i vi du alcapaci ty. I n con clusion, Ru le 19 r eq uir e s t ha t onc e a cou rt de term in e s t h at a p ar ty is a re q u ire d p ar ty an d it is fea sib le for t h at partyto be j oi ned, the cour t “ mu s to r d e rt h a tt he person be m a d e a party
. ” F ED
. R. C IV
. P . 19(a )(2) (em p h as is add e d)

. Co o kCo un t y fi t s tha tb i l l t o a “ T”

. T he di s tr i ct c ou rterr ed w h en it d ism iss ed th e a c tio n ; it s h ou ld i nstea d have o rder ed that Cook C ou nty b e m ade a party
. I fthe c as e wer e st i l l pr o ce edi nga g ai nst b othLo pez a nd th e Sheriff, that i s allw e w ou ld n e e d to say. U nfortu n at ely for A sk ew , ho w ev er , m at te rs are m or e c om p li-N o. 07

- 2190 11

ca te d. Ask ew’ s br i efo n appe ali nc l ude s anuna m bi g uo us wai ve r o fa ny c l ai m tha t he mightha ve ha d a g ainst the Sh er iff. I t s ta te s t h a t t h e d ist ric t c ou rtw as “c or re c t in d ism iss in g p lain tiff’s cla im br ou gh t a g a i n s t t h e Sh er iff in hi s o f fi ci alcapaci ty
. . . . ” As w e hav e s ai d, th is is no t tr u e. A t t h is p oin t, h ow ev er, A s k e w ca n n ot av oid th is wai ve r . On r emand, f o r the r ea so ns we ha ve s etf o r th, the ca se may go forwa r d a g ai ns t Lo pez wi th o uti nc l udi ng the County as a par ty. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t i s there f or e V ACATED and the ca se i s R EMA NDE D f o r fur th erpr o ce edi ng s co nsis te n t w ith th is op in ion . C irc u it R u le 3 6 s h all a p p ly o n r e man d.

5- 18- 09