Opinion ID: 357298
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dismissal of the City

Text: 4 The primary issue on appeal is whether the district judge properly dismissed the city from this action. Although his cause of action against the individual officers was based, in part, on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1 Molina conceded on appeal that this statute gives him no right of action against the city because of the holding in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187-92, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), that a municipality is not a person within the meaning of section 1983. In spite of the intervening decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), which overruled Monroe in part, this concession by Molina is still appropriate. 5 Monell disapproved of the broad holding in Monroe that local governments are wholly immune from suit under § 1983, id. --- U.S. at ----, 98 S.Ct. at 2022 (footnote omitted), as inconsistent with the intent of Congress when it enacted that statute. But Monell reaffirmed Monroe to the extent it decided 6 that a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. 7 . . . Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983. 8 Id. at ----, ----, 98 S.Ct. at 2036, 2038 (emphasis in original). 9 Molina's complaint sought recovery against the city solely by virtue of (the employment) relationship between the city and the police officers. Although it is conceded that the officers were acting in their official capacities when they stopped Molina and questioned him, Molina did not argue before the district court that the allegedly illegal conduct of the officers may fairly be said to represent (the city's) official policy. Thus, Monell does not give Molina a section 1983 cause of action against the city. 10 Molina asserts, however, that jurisdiction over the city exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 2 the general federal question jurisdiction statute, and that a cause of action for vicarious liability against the city may be inferred directly from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. We are thus called upon to decide a question on which the federal courts are divided: whether the decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), should be extended to provide a cause of action for damages against a municipality for the violation of a citizen's constitutional rights by police officers. 3 11 In Bivens, the plaintiff had been the victim of police misconduct not dissimilar to that alleged by Molina in this case. After having been manacled, arrested, and taken into custody in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Bivens was released and no charges were brought against him. Neither section 1983 nor any other federal statute provided a remedy to Bivens, and rather than leave him to rely upon state tort remedies whose protection might not be co-extensive with that of the Fourth Amendment, the Court exercised its judicial power to infer a remedy directly from the text of the amendment itself. 12 Because the city is not vicariously liable under section 1983 for the alleged violation of Molina's Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, he would have us supply a substitute remedy by extending the Bivens doctrine to create such liability against the city directly under the Fourteenth Amendment. 4 We conclude that it would be inappropriate for us to do so.
13 We are not in doubt about federal jurisdiction in this case. As early as 1946 the Supreme Court decided that federal question jurisdiction exists for claims urging a cause of action based directly on the Constitution. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). As did the plaintiff in Bell, Molina seeks recovery squarely on the ground that specific constitutional guarantees have been violated. Id. at 681, 66 S.Ct. 773. The recent decision in City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973), suggests that the Supreme Court sees no obstacle to federal jurisdiction in Bivens actions against municipalities. 5 14 The city contends that jurisdiction is lacking because the requisite $10,000 jurisdictional amount of section 1331 is not in controversy. We disagree. The test for determining whether the jurisdictional amount is in controversy is liberally tilted in favor of plaintiffs: 15 (T)he sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal. The inability of plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction. 16 St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938) (footnotes omitted); accord, Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 276, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). 17 The city argues that the small recovery against the officers demonstrates to a legal certainty that Molina could not have recovered $10,000 against their employer, since the city could not be liable for more than were its agents. But the city has not demonstrated or even alleged that when the trial began such a small recovery was inevitable, and it is at the time of suit, id. at 277, 97 S.Ct. 568, that the determination of the amount in controversy is made. See 1 Moore's Fed.Practice P 0.91(3), at 850-51. 6
18 While the federal court has jurisdiction, it is another matter whether Molina's complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. As Bell made clear, the existence of a cause of action is conceptually distinct from the presence of jurisdiction, 7 327 U.S. at 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, and it is to the question whether Molina has a cause of action against the city that we now turn. 19
20 The first step in deciding whether Molina has a Bivens action against the city is to determine whether that result is constitutionally required. We conclude that it is not. 21 The majority in Bivens strongly implied that specific congressional action might have precluded the judicial creation of a damages remedy in that case. 403 U.S. at 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999. Such preclusion would not be permissible, of course, were the Bivens result a constitutional necessity. If the Constitution did not compel the result in Bivens, neither does it compel the extension of the doctrine of that case to municipalities. Even those who advocate that extension concede that this is so. E. g., Note, Damage Remedies Against Municipalities For Constitutional Violations, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 922, 935-39 (1976). 22 Since we are not required to allow Molina his cause of action against the city, the question becomes whether we should do so. Specifically, the issue is whether the difference between this case and Bivens either precludes or counsels against the exercise of our judicial discretion to provide a damages remedy to redress any constitutional violation that may have been caused by the city. 23
24 Two separate, though related, arguments have been advanced against the imposition of Bivens liability on municipalities. The first, relying on the implication in Bivens that congressional action might have precluded the result in that case, 403 U.S. at 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, is that by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Congress has supplied the exclusive remedy for constitutional violations committed under color of state authority. 8 Thus, the argument goes, we would be precluded from extending Bivens to municipalities. While we recognize the logic and persuasive reasoning of this position, we find it unnecessary to decide whether to adopt it because we believe the issue is more than adequately resolved by the second argument: that it would be an unwise use of judicial power to accede to the demanded extension. The Court in Bivens acknowledged that there might be special factors counselling hesitation when the courts infer a cause of action directly from the Constitution in the absence of affirmative action by Congress. 9 403 U.S. at 396, 91 S.Ct. at 2005. We find several such factors in this case. 25
26 What kept the Bivens dissenters from joining with the rest of the Court was also a major cautionary signal to both Mr. Justice Harlan and the majority. All recognized that the implementation of constitutional guarantees is primarily a legislative task, as contrasted with the interpretive responsibilities of the judiciary. See Comment, Implying a Damage Remedy Against Municipalities Directly Under the Fourteenth Amendment: Congressional Action as an Obstacle to Extension of the Bivens Doctrine, 36 Md.L.Rev. 123, 145-46 (1976) (hereinafter referred to as Congressional Action ). The majority in Bivens, however, found no legislative scheme implementing the Fourth Amendment by allowing recovery against federal officers for their constitutional violations. 10 The Court thus found itself in a field into which Congress had not entered, and in that setting felt free to provide an appropriate remedy. 27 Although Congress may have been relatively inactive in legislative protection for constitutional violations by federal officers, it has moved rather spectacularly into the parallel field involving state action. This is illustrated not only by section 1983 and other 19th Century civil-rights statutes, but also by such complex and comprehensive legislation as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments. 28 In spite of its active awareness of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment against state and local governments, however, Congress has deliberately chosen to exclude vicarious liability against municipalities from the scope of section 1983. 11 Indeed, even after Monroe held that municipalities were totally protected from section 1983 liability, Congress resisted attempts to counter the effects of that decision by amending the statute, see Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F.2d 1018, 1059-60 (3d Cir. 1977) (Garth, J., dissenting and concurring), choosing instead to proceed more cautiously in the field of municipal liability. 12 Surely it is appropriate for the federal judiciary to respect that considered legislative reticence. 29 This is especially so in light of the distinct enforcement roles of Congress under the terms of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 13 appears to anticipate a central role for Congress in implementing the amendment's guarantees. An analogous provision is not found in the Fourth Amendment, the basis of the remedy in Bivens. See id. at 1059 (Garth, J., dissenting and concurring); Raffety v. Prince George's County, 423 F.Supp. 1045, 1058 (D.Md.1976); Congressional Action, supra, 36 Md.L.Rev. at 146-47. We believe section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment counsels an especially heightened sensitivity to the traditional role of Congress in implementing constitutional principles through the legislative process. In dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment, we would show inadequate deference to that role were we to use the courts to accomplish what the legislature has legitimately refused to do. 30
31 Another consideration which cautions against the extension of the Bivens doctrine to municipalities pertains to federalism. This factor, of course, was totally absent in Bivens, where the action was against United States government officers only. But the competing interests of our federal system are directly confronted when liability based upon the Constitution is imposed upon subdivisions of the states. 32 The authorization of tort actions against the fisc is a delicate matter, especially when an instrumentality of the state is concerned. . . . (Although the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit such remedies against municipalities), the values of federalism embodied (in that amendment) have similar force in this context and, at the very least, the creation of actions against the treasuries of local government bodies is a sensitive political matter. In light of these considerations and the deliberate exclusion . . . from § 1983 (of vicarious liability against municipalities), the power of federal courts to make such entities liable through a different means should not lightly be inferred. 33 Kostka v. Hogg, 560 F.2d 37, 44 n.6 (1st Cir. 1977). Accord, Farnsworth v. Orem City, 421 F.Supp. 830, 831 (D.Utah 1976); Perzanowski v. Salvio, 369 F.Supp. 223, 230-31 (D.Conn.1974). But see Congressional Action, supra, 36 Md.L.Rev. at 143-45. 34 If the federal courts inject themselves too rapidly into disputes between local governments and individual citizens, the states and their political subdivisions will likely be inhibited from seeking creative, efficacious resolutions to such disputes. This is no less true when the controversy involves a federal constitutional right. 35 The validity of this proposition is aptly demonstrated by what has occurred in California where Molina's deprivation occurred. The Supreme Court of that state has recently declared that public employees are entitled to reimbursement from their agency employers for nonpunitive damages incurred in section 1983 actions, provided the employee was acting within the scope of his authority. Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal.3d 834, 129 Cal.Rptr. 453, 548 P.2d 1125 (1976) (en banc). Thus, with respect to actual damages suffered, plaintiffs injured by municipal employees, as was Molina, have full access to the deep pocket of California local governments through the medium of a section 1983 action against the offending officials. Such state-originated remedies which at once serve the interests of federalism and guard constitutional values would be less likely to emerge if the federal judiciary exercised insufficient restraint when invited to produce its own solutions to every perceived need to protect individual rights against local government action. 36 We do not decide that federalism concerns strictly preclude the extension of vicarious liability against municipalities under the Bivens rationale. But we are convinced that those concerns are sufficiently implicated in constitutional torts against local governments that the creation of such causes of action by the federal judiciary is not in the interests of a sound federal equilibrium. 37
38 A primary concern of the majority in Bivens was that unless the Court allowed a cause of action directly under the Constitution, the plaintiff would be left to his state remedies which might be inconsistent (with) or even hostile to the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. 403 U.S. at 394, 91 S.Ct. 1999. There was no federal statute pursuant to which Bivens could sue. Molina faces no such predicament, for section 1983, a remedy incorporating by reference the protections of the Constitution itself, is available to him. Indeed, he recovered against the defendant police officers in this case under that very statute. Thus, Molina who had a statutory cause of action directly under the Constitution, was manifestly in a different position than was Webster Bivens. See Crosley v. Davis, 426 F.Supp. 389, 395 (E.D.Pa.1977); Livingood v. Townsend, 422 F.Supp. 24, 27 (D.Minn.1976); Pitrone v. Mercadante, 420 F.Supp. 1384, 1389 (E.D.Pa.1976). 39 Those advocating the extension of Bivens to municipalities make much of the argument that a remedy against individual officers alone may be inadequate since juries might hesitate to impose liability upon officers who, apparently, were acting in good faith, and since such defendants are often judgment proof anyway. They also assert that remedies directly against municipalities may more effectively deter future wrongdoing than do lawsuits against the lower level employees who actually perpetrate the wrong. 40 We are not persuaded. We find it significant that Bivens simply does not assist as a logical springboard for the extension suggested. There, the recovery was against the individual federal officers involved, and not against their deep-pocketed employer, the United States. Thus, the true analogue to Bivens liability for wrongs committed by agents of a municipality is precisely that provided by section 1983. Further, neither Molina nor the amicus in this case has demonstrated to us that section 1983 plaintiffs are not being justly compensated for violations of their constitutional rights under color of state authority. Clipper v. Takoma Park, No. 73-295-B, slip op. at 24 (D.Md. March 25, 1975). Indeed, as stated earlier, California public employees are entitled to indemnification for compensatory damages judgments against them in federal civil rights actions, Williams v. Horvath, supra, 16 Cal.3d 834, 129 Cal.Rptr. 453, 548 P.2d 1125, and Molina has thus not been faced with the prospect of insolvent judgment debtors. Our response to the concern about additional deterrent effect and to the fear that jury sympathies will unfairly favor defendants in section 1983 actions against individual officers is that these factors are speculative at best. We decline to premise major judicial policymaking on such grounds. 41
42 By declining to allow Molina's cause of action against the city directly under the Fourteenth Amendment, we do not denigrate the importance of the interests protected by that amendment. We merely conclude that the considerations discussed above persuasively warn that creation by the federal judiciary of a certain remedy to protect those interests is, in this case, inappropriate. 14 We stress that if the remedy sought here is socially desirable, nothing prevents the more appropriate national, state, or local institutions of government from supplying it.