Title: STICKNEY v STATE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-003
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 25, 1981

a NO. 81303 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1 9 8 1 ARWOOD STICKNEY, HIRAM NELSON, DENNIS NELSON, MIKE NELSON, DAN NELSON, WILLIAM O'NEII,L, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , STATE O F MONTANA, COUNTY O F MISSOULA, MISSOULA COUNTY ATTORNEY, "DUSTY" DESCHAMPS, e t a l . , D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t , I n and for t h e C o u n t y of M i s s o u l a , H o n o r a b l e J a m e s W h e e l i s , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t s : W i l l i a m D. M o r r i s , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t s : R o b e r t L . D e s c h a m p s , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a B o o n e , K a r l b e r g & H a d d o n , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a T e r r y A. W a l l a c e , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on briefs: S e p t e m b e r 3 , 1 9 8 1 D e c i d e d : N o v e m b e r 25, 1 9 8 1 F i l e d : m\! 2 F ju81 3 1 C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f s appeal from the dismissal of t h e i r complaint a g a i n s t Missoula County Attorney Dusty Deschamps, J u s t i c e of t h e Peace J a n e t Jensen and Missoula County S h e r i f f Ray Froehlich. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o appeal t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of $500 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s t o Jensen. O n May 5, 1980, e i g h t of t h e a p p e l l a n t s (Arwood Stickney, Chriss Nelson, Barbara Welch, Daniel Nelson, Dennis Nelson, Hiram Nelson, Michael Nelson and P a t s i e Hoskinson) w e r e i n t h e courtroom of J u s t i c e Jensen awaiting t h e misdemeanor t r i a l of a p p e l l a n t William OINeill. O ' N e i l l was charged with v i o l a t i o n of t h e vehicular l i a b i l i t y insurance s t a t u t e . The a p p e l l a n t s a r e r e l a t e d t o O'Neill and w e r e p r e s e n t t o show t h e i r support f o r h i s challenge t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e s t a t u t e . Deschamps was p r e s e n t representing Missoula County. Before t h e t r i a l began, Jensen asked t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o leave t h e overcrowded courtroom. They refused. Jensen found them i n contempt, s e c t i o n 3-10-401(3), MCA, and immediately sentenced each t o one day i n j a i l . The a p p e l l a n t s held i n contempt w e r e taken i n t o custody by t h e Missoula County deputies and confined i n t h e county j a i l f o r one day. The a p p e l l a n t s served t h e i r sentences and were released. A complaint f o r damages was f i l e d June 9, 1980. The complaint named a s defendants t h e S t a t e of Montana, Missoula County, Deschamps, Jensen, Froehlich and t h e a r r e s t i n g deputies. The S t a t e of Montana was dismissed by t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court and i s no longer a defendant i n t h i s a c t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n t o O ' N e i l l and those a p p e l l a n t s found t o be i n contempt, f i v e o t h e r s , a l s o r e l a t e d t o O ' N e i l l and t h e o t h e r a p p e l l a n t s , claimed damages from t h e a r r e s t and confinement. The a p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e d the a c t i o n s of Jensen c o n s t i t u t e d o f f i c i a l misconduct i n o f f i c e . They a l l e g e d Deschamps breached h i s duty t o " a c t and prevent a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g criminal conduct when s a i d a c t s [were] committed i n h i s presence'' and t h a t a p p e l l a n t William O'Neill was denied h i s r i g h t t o public t r i a l . The remaining damages claimed r e s u l t e d from t h e j a i l conditions and emotional d i s t r e s s . The complaint p a r t i c u l a r l y alleged t h a t , t h e e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s were l i a b l e i n both o f f i c i a l and personal c a p a c i t i e s . The D i s t r i c t Court dismissed t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t Deschamps, Jensen and Froehlich, i n both o f f i c i a l and personal c a p a c i t i e s and awarded Jensen $500 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s finding t h e personal l i a b i l i t y claim a g a i n s t her " f r i v o l o u s and without apparent merit. " Appellants have abandoned t h e i r claims a g a i n s t Deschamps, Jensen and Froehlich i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s , r e l y i n g upon t h e i r apparent conviction t h a t t h e i r cause can be supported on a theory of personal l i a b i l i t y . Appellants p r e s e n t two i s s u e s i n t h e appeal: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly dismissed t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e named o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r personal capacity. 2. Whether the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e j u s t i c e of t h e peace. Both challenges must f a i l . W e hold t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly dismissed t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t respondents Deschamps, Froehlich and Jensen i n t h e i r personal c a p a c i t i e s . Appellants have f a i l e d t o appeal t h e dismissal of t h e a c t i o n based upon o f f i c i a l conduct, t h e r e f o r e Deschamps, Froehlich and Jensen a r e no longer defendants i n t h e a c t i o n . Further, we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court's award of a t t o r n e y f e e s incurred by Jensen i n defense of t h e personal l i a b i l i t y claim. F i r s t , review of t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' complaint mandates t h e conclusion t h e D i s t r i c t Court acted properly. The f a c t s a s pleaded by a p p e l l a n t s p r e s e n t no b a s i s f o r personal l i a b i l i t y . Throughout t h e events r e c i t e d i n t h e complaint t h e respondents acted i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s only. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s case, viewed i n a l i g h t most favorable t o a p p e l l a n t s , t h e r e simply can be no personal l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e named respondents. Second, t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s was within t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . I n Foy v. Anderson (1978), 176 Mont. 507, 580 P.2d 1 1 4 , we affirmed an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s although no s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t u a l o r s t a t u t o r y g r a n t so provided. W e held t h e D i s t r i c t Court "reserv[ed] t h e power t o g r a n t complete r e l i e f under i t s equity power," which power should be applied on a case-by-case b a s i s . Like t h e defendant who was awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s i n FOY, Jensen, - through no f a u l t of her own, was forced t o personally defend a g a i n s t a f r i v o l o u s a c t i o n . Judgment affirmed. W e Concur: