Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/966/480/143128/
Timestamp: 2019-10-14 17:44:29
Document Index: 486666163

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 502', '§ 1681', '§ 1983', '§ 502', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 502', '§ 1983', '§ 502', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1291', '§ 1983']

Yolanda U. Denieva, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Reyes, Acting Chief of Immigration, Office Ofimmigration and Naturalization in His Official Andindividual Capacities; Government of the Commonwealth Ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, Defendants-appellants, 966 F.2d 480 (9th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1992 › Yolanda U. Denieva, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Reyes, Acting Chief of Immigration, Office Ofimmi...
Yolanda U. Denieva, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Reyes, Acting Chief of Immigration, Office Ofimmigration and Naturalization in His Official Andindividual Capacities; Government of the Commonwealth Ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, Defendants-appellants, 966 F.2d 480 (9th Cir. 1992)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 966 F.2d 480 (9th Cir. 1992) Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 1991. Decided June 5, 1992
DeNieva, relying on Fleming v. Department of Public Safety, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 837 F.2d 401, 406-07 (9th Cir.) (finding that CNMI is a "person" under § 1983), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 889, 109 S. Ct. 222, 102 L. Ed. 2d 212 (1988), contends that the CNMI is a "person" within the meaning of § 1983 and, therefore, is subject to suit under § 1983. This argument is unmeritorious in light of Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 68-70, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2310-11, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989), which held that states are not "persons" within the meaning of § 1983, and Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182, 192, 110 S. Ct. 1737, 109 L. Ed. 2d 163 (1990), which held that the Territory of Guam is not a "person" under § 1983. Fleming's conclusion was based on, first, the implicit finding in Bunyan v. Camacho, 770 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 903, 106 S. Ct. 3271, 91 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1986), that § 1983 applies to Guam; and, second, § 502(a) (2) of the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, reprinted as amended in 48 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988), which applies to the CNMI "those laws ... which are applicable to Guam and which are of general application to the several States as they are applicable to the several States." (Emphasis added). Will and Ngiraingas establish that neither Guam nor the states are "persons" within the meaning of § 1983. As a result, § 502(a) (2) of the CNMI covenant, which had formed the basis of the Fleming opinion, indicates that the CNMI is not a "person" under § 1983. We conclude that, in light of Will and Ngiraingas, the CNMI is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983, and Fleming is no longer good law on this issue. Neither the CNMI nor its officers acting in their official capacity can be sued under § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 71, 109 S. Ct. at 2311-12 (suit against officer in official capacity "is a suit against the official's office. As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself.") (citation omitted).
Reyes, however, is a "person" for the purposes of a suit against him in his individual capacity. See Hafer v. Melo, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 358, 365, 116 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1991) (" [S]tate officials, sued in their individual capacities, are 'persons' within the meaning of § 1983.") We need consider only briefly the remaining jurisdictional requirements for a § 1983 claim against Reyes in his individual capacity: that Reyes acted "under color of" CNMI law,2 and that the law of the CNMI is the law of a "State or Territory," within the meaning of § 1983. With respect to the first requirement, there is no doubt that Reyes, who confiscated DeNieva's passport pursuant to his authority as Acting Chief of Immigration for the CNMI, acted under color of CNMI law. Reyes does not contend otherwise, and there would be no basis for such an assertion. Regarding the second requirement, § 502(a) (2) of the CNMI covenant provides that "those laws ... which are applicable to Guam and which are of general application to the several states" apply to the CNMI. Because § 1983 applies to Guam and to the states, we find that, under § 502(a) (2), § 1983 also applies to the laws of the CNMI. Thus, § 1983 provides jurisdiction for DeNieva's claims against Reyes in his individual capacity.
"When it comes to defenses to liability, an official in a personal-capacity action may, depending on his position, be able to assert personal immunity defenses." Graham, 473 U.S. at 166, 105 S. Ct. at 3105. In this case, Reyes contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from DeNieva's claims against him and, therefore, that the district court erred in ruling that he was not immune from suit.
As an initial matter, we must consider DeNieva's argument that Reyes waived his right to appeal the denial of qualified immunity. DeNieva contends that, because Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2817-18, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1985), held that a denial of qualified immunity is an appealable "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), the time limit for the filing of an appeal began to run as soon as the district court denied Reyes' summary judgment motion, so that the time for appeal elapsed long before entry of the final judgment. We reject this argument because it would transform the permissive rule of Mitchell--that a defendant may appeal a denial of qualified immunity--into a requirement of immediate appeal that Mitchell does not announce (or even intimate) and that would ignore principles of judicial economy by creating delays that waste the time and resources of the courts and the litigants. Other courts considering this issue have come to a similar conclusion. See, e.g., Kurowski v. Krajewski, 848 F.2d 767, 773 (7th Cir.) (holding that "a public official may raise questions of immunity on appeal from a final judgment, even though he bypassed an opportunity to take an interlocutory appeal"), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926, 109 S. Ct. 309, 102 L. Ed. 2d 328 (1988); Zayas-Green v. Casaine, 906 F.2d 18, 25 (1st Cir. 1990) (same). But cf. Kennedy v. City of Cleveland, 797 F.2d 297, 304-06 (6th Cir. 1986) (district court did not err in striking motion to reconsider denial of qualified immunity because defendants so moved more than 30 days after denial of qualified immunity), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1103, 107 S. Ct. 1334, 94 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1987). We conclude, therefore, that a defendant can appeal the denial of qualified immunity either immediately upon the denial or after final judgment.
We turn, then, to the district court's ruling that Reyes was not protected by qualified immunity. The Supreme Court delineated the scope of qualified immunity for government officials in Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987):
(Citation omitted). We have interpreted this standard as providing that, "regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not 'clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991). Accord Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991); Thorsted v. Kelly, 858 F.2d 571, 573 (9th Cir. 1988).
We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes' violation of a clearly established right. At the outset, we note that Reyes' retention of DeNieva's passport infringed upon her ability to travel internationally. Reyes does not suggest otherwise, and there would be no basis for such an argument, anyway: Without her passport, she could travel internationally only with great difficulty, if at all. With respect to the substantive right at issue, the Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the right to international travel since 1958, when, in ruling that the Secretary of State was not authorized to deny passports to members of the Communist Party, it stated that " [t]he right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S. Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1958). Moreover, the Court has consistently treated the right to international travel as a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., id.; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505-508, 84 S. Ct. 1659, 1663-1665, 12 L. Ed. 2d 992 (1964) (rejecting limitations on right to international travel--in the form of restrictions on passports--as inconsistent with Due Process Clause); cf. Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170, 176, 99 S. Ct. 471, 474-75, 58 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1978) (noting that " ' [t]he constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified. By contrast the "right" of international travel has been considered to be no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.... [and] can be regulated within the bounds of due process.' ") (citations omitted). In light of these cases, we conclude that, by the time of Reyes' seizure of DeNieva's passport in 1988, DeNieva's right to international travel was clearly established as a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Reyes acknowledges the existence of a liberty interest in international travel but nevertheless suggests that he did not violate DeNieva's constitutional rights because she was not entitled to either a pre- or post-deprivation hearing. This argument is without merit. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the state cannot deprive a person of a liberty or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment without a hearing. See, e.g., Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 433, 102 S. Ct. 1148, 1156, 71 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1982) ("As our decisions have emphasized time and again, the Due Process Clause grants the aggrieved party the opportunity to present his case and have its merits fairly judged."); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557-58, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2975-76, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974) (" [S]ome kind of hearing is required at some time before a person is finally deprived of" property or liberty interests); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L. Ed. 2d 62 (1965) ("A fundamental requirement of due process is 'the opportunity to be heard.' It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.") (citation omitted). There have been cases in which the Supreme Court has found that a post-deprivation hearing suffices, e.g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 349, 96 S. Ct. 893, 909-10, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976), but under no circumstances has the Supreme Court permitted a state to deprive a person of a life, liberty, or property interest under the Due Process Clause without any hearing whatsoever. Such a deprivation without any suggestion of a hearing occurred in the instant case. As Reyes acknowledged at oral argument, he did not provide a pre- or post-deprivation hearing, and there was no mechanism under CNMI law that required him to do so. Reyes took DeNieva's passport for a potentially indefinite period without a hearing, and that period was shortened only because a police officer arrested her. In light of the foregoing, we have no difficulty concluding that DeNieva's right to a hearing was clearly established and that Reyes' retention of her passport without a hearing after she requested its return violated that right.
We review the district court's exclusion of the testimony for abuse of discretion. Thurman Industries, Inc. v. Pay 'N Pak Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369, 1378 (9th Cir. 1989). The testimony at issue was only marginally relevant to the amount of DeNieva's damages, as there was no testimony establishing that she could have obtained the necessary authorization within the 11-day period that Reyes retained her passport before her arrest. In fact, the testimony indicated that it would have been difficult for her to return to the Philippines, as her birth certificate apparently would not have been sufficient. Moreover, the testimony could have been prejudicial, as it could have led the jury to question the district court's summary judgment ruling that Reyes had violated DeNieva's constitutional rights. Given the potential for prejudice and the minimal probative value, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this testimony.IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence in Support of the Damage Award
We "do [ ] not disturb an award of damages on appeal unless it is clearly unsupported by the evidence or is 'grossly excessive, monstrous, or shocking to the conscience.' " Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473, 480 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753, 760 (9th Cir. 1985)). In this case, DeNieva's testimony indicated that she had suffered emotional distress and physical trauma (e.g., insomnia, dizziness, vomiting) during the 11-day period, and Reyes failed to present evidence that indicated otherwise. In light of DeNieva's uncontroverted testimony, the jury's award is neither unsupported by the evidence nor grossly excessive.
The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. United States v. Moncini, 882 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1989)
" ' [T]o establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.' ... [T]he plaintiff in a personal-capacity suit need not establish a connection to governmental 'policy or custom,'...." Hafer, 112 S. Ct. at 362 (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 3105, 87 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1985)) (emphasis in Graham)
The Supreme Court stated in Will that the limitation on suits against officers in their official capacity applies only to suits for damages, because " 'official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state.' " 491 U.S. at 71 n. 10, 109 S. Ct. at 2311 n. 10 (quoting Graham, 473 U.S. at 167 n. 14, 105 S. Ct. at 3106 n. 14.) DeNieva did not request prospective relief, so this distinction does not apply here
We review de novo the district court's denial of a defense of qualified immunity, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991)