Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/356/case.html
Timestamp: 2014-07-11 07:19:02
Document Index: 158873284

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1979', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 768', '§ 768', '§ 768', '§ 1983']

Howlett v. Rose - 496 U.S. 356 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Sign In	Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court > Volume 496 > Howlett v. Rose - 496 U.S. 356 > Case	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Howlett v. Rose - 496 U.S. 356 (1990)
Case	U.S. Supreme CourtHowlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)Howlett By and Through Howlett v. RoseNo. 89-5383Argued March 20, 1990Decided June 11, 1990496 U.S. 356CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA,
(a) Since the defendant in Hill was a state agency protected from suit in federal court by the Eleventh Amendment, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332, 440 U. S. 341, and thus was not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983, see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58, Hill's actual disposition, if not its language and reasoning, comports with Will, which established that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal or state court. However, in construing Hill to extend absolute immunity not only to the State and its arm Page 496 U. S. 357 but also to municipalities, counties, and school districts who might otherwise be subject to suit under § 1983 in federal court, the District Court of Appeal's decision raises the concern that that court may be evading federal law and discriminating against federal causes of action. The adequacy of the state law ground to support a judgment precluding litigation of the federal claim is a federal question, which this Court reviews de novo. See, e.g., James v. Kentucky, 466 U. S. 341, 466 U. S. 348-349. 496 U. S. 361-366,
(c) The District Court of Appeal's refusal to entertain § 1983 actions against state entities such as school boards violates the Supremacy Clause. If that refusal amounts to the adoption of a substantive rule of decision that state agencies are not subject to liability under § 1983, it directly violates federal law, which makes governmental defendants that are not arms of the State liable for their constitutional violations under § 1983. See, e.g., St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U. S. 112, 485 U. S. 121-122. Conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under § 1983 cannot be immunized by state law, even though the federal cause of action is being asserted in state court. See, e.g., Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277, 444 U. S. 284, and n. 8. If, on the other hand, the District Court of Appeal's decision meant that § 1983 claims are excluded from the category of tort claims that the Circuit Court could hear against a school board, it was no less violative of federal law. Cf. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Burnette, 239 U. S. 199, 239 U. S. 201. The State has constituted the Circuit Court as a court of general jurisdiction, and it entertains state common law and statutory claims against state entities in a variety of their capacities, as well as § 1983 actions against individual state officials. A state policy that declines jurisdiction over one discrete category of § 1983 claims, yet permits similar state law actions against state defendants, can be based only on the rationale that such defendants should not be held liable for § 1983 violations. Thus, there is no neutral or valid excuse for the refusal to hear suits like petitioner's. Pp. 496 U. S. 375-381. Page 496 U. S. 358
Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev.Stat. § 1979, now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982 ed.), creates a remedy for violations of federal rights committed by persons acting under color of state law. [Footnote 1] State courts as well as federal courts have jurisdiction over § 1983 cases. The question in Page 496 U. S. 359 this case is whether a state law defense of "sovereign immunity" is available to a school board otherwise subject to suit in a Florida court even though such a defense would not be available if the action had been brought in a federal forum.
The District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's § 1983 claim against the Page 496 U. S. 360 school board. [Footnote 3] It held that the availability of sovereign immunity in a § 1983 action brought in state court is a matter of state law, and that Florida's statutory waiver of sovereign immunity did not apply to § 1983 cases. The court rejected the argument that whether a State has maintained its sovereign immunity from a § 1983 suit in its state courts is a question of federal law. It wrote:
The Court of Appeal acknowledged our holding in Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277 (1980), that a State cannot immunize an official from liability for injuries compensable under federal law. It held, however, that, under Hill, a State's invocation of a "state common law immunity from the use of its courts for suits against the state in those state courts" raised "purely a question of state law." 537 So.2d at 708. The Florida Supreme Court denied review. 545 So.2d 1367 (1987). In view of the importance of the question decided by the Court of Appeal, we granted certiorari. 493 U.S. 963 (1989). Page 496 U. S. 361
The question in this case stems from the Florida Supreme Court's decision in the Hill case. In that case, the plaintiff sought damages for common law negligence and false imprisonment and violations of his constitutional rights under § 1983 from the Florida Department of Corrections for the conduct of one of its probation supervisors. Hill argued that the Department was a "person" under § 1983, that it was responsible for the actions of its supervisor, and that it was subject to suit in the Circuit Court pursuant to the Florida waiver of sovereign immunity. Fla.Stat. § 768.28 (1989). [Footnote 4] That statute provides that the State and its subdivisions, including municipalities and school boards, § 768.28(2), are subject to suit in Circuit Court for tort claims "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances," § 768.28(5). [Footnote 5] Although the terms of the waiver Page 496 U. S. 362 could be read narrowly to restrict liability to claims against the State in its proprietary capacity, the Florida courts have rejected that interpretation. [Footnote 6] In 16 cases arising under Florida statutory and common law, the State Supreme Court has held that the state may be sued in respondeat superior for the violation of nondiscretionary duties in the exercise of governmental authority. The Florida courts thus have entertained suits against state agencies for the violation of nondiscretionary duties committed in the performance of various governmental activities, including the roadside stop and arrest of an individual driving with an expired inspection sticker, [Footnote 7] the negligent maintenance by city employees of a Page 496 U. S. 363 storm sewer system, [Footnote 8] the failure of a state caseworker to detect and prevent child abuse, [Footnote 9] the negligent maintenance of county swimming pools and failure to warn or correct known dangerous conditions, [Footnote 10] and the failure to protect a prison inmate from other inmates known to be dangerous. [Footnote 11] Hill argued Page 496 U. S. 364 that, just as the State could be joined in an action for the violation of established state common law or statutory duties, it was also subject to suit for violations of its nondiscretionary duty not to violate the Constitution. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 445 U. S. 649-650 (1980).
Ibid. The court thus affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim, but reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment on Page 496 U. S. 365 the common law claim and allowed the judgment for Hill on that claim to stand.
The language and reasoning of the State Supreme Court, if not its