Opinion ID: 389290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proper Parties

Text: 29 The defendants raise the question whether this lawsuit presents an Article III case or controversy over which the trial court may properly assert jurisdiction. The chancery judges and clerks note that the plaintiff class is divisible into two groups: (1) persons confined involuntarily in which case habeas corpus provides their exclusive remedy or (2) persons with, at most, a speculative fear of being committed or recommitted to a mental institution. The defendants argue that both groups lack Article III standing to bring this § 1983 suit. 30 As our discussion in Part II, supra, indicates, we find that habeas corpus is not the exclusive remedy available to the confined members of the plaintiff class. Thus, they have standing to bring this § 1983 action. Moreover, although all formerly confined class representatives may have been subsequently discharged from state custody, the confinement of a single class representative at the time the trial court certified the plaintiff class 13 insulates the controversy from mootness. Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 400, 95 S.Ct. 553, 557, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975). See also Cruz v. Hauck, 627 F.2d 710, 717 (5th Cir. 1980). Even if all named class representatives are free from confinement at the present time, the certified class includes confined persons with a personal stake in obtaining review of their commitments under procedures that comport with due process standards. 14 31 Finding a live Article III controversy with respect to the certified subclass of confined plaintiffs, we examine the propriety of the subclass consisting of persons subject to commitment or recommitment in the future. Defendants question whether the plaintiff subclass represented by persons with histories of prior civil commitments who fear recommitment can show a sufficiently concrete threat of injury to present justiciable controversy. Specifically, they derive support from O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), where black indigent citizens of a community boiling with racial conflicts, id. at 507, 94 S.Ct. at 681 (Douglas, J., dissenting) were found to lack the requisite real and immediate threat of injury necessary to press justiciable claims of racially discriminatory conduct by local law enforcement officials. Cf. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 109-110, 89 S.Ct. 956, 960, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969) (to pose an Article III controversy, plaintiffs' asserted threat of injury must be real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical). 32 We find a closer analogy in Coll v. Hyland, 411 F.Supp. 905 (D.N.J.1976). There, the three-judge court considering a § 1983 suit challenging New Jersey's civil commitment procedures found a former mental patient's history of mental illness enhanced the probability of recommitment sufficiently to demonstrate a real and immediate threat of injury. Id. at 907-08. See also In re Balley, 482 F.2d 648, 652 n.13 (D.C.Cir.1973) (court rejects argument that former mental patient's claim was mooted by release, noting that adjudication of mental incompetence gives rise to ongoing injurious presumption of continuing incompetence). 33 Since the trial court's order does not provide any detailed factual findings or legal analysis explaining its implied determination that a justiciable Article III controversy exists with respect to the plaintiffs who fear future confinement or reconfinement, we cannot tell whether the determination is correct. But, at this interlocutory stage of the proceedings, we certainly cannot say that a live controversy does not exist as to this plaintiff subclass. On remand, as the composition of the defendant class undergoes redefinition, the trial court should review its earlier certification of this plaintiff subclass in light of the applicable Article III standards we have discussed here.
34 Finally, we turn to the defendants' contention that, as chancery judges and clerks, they are not the real parties in interest in this lawsuit. As judicial officers following statutory procedures designed by the state legislature, the defendants contend they are not the governmental officials responsible for correcting constitutional deficiencies in Mississippi's civil commitment system. Significantly, this objection to the plaintiffs' choice of defendants was not raised until this appeal. 35 Defendants' argument is couched in the terminology of Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a). 15 Their argument is advanced as raising issues concerning the Article III constitutional requirement. On the other hand, plaintiffs undertook to bring suit against government officials of the State of Mississippi enforcing and applying the Mississippi commitment procedures. This is the class of defendants which plaintiff endeavored to create. The purpose of the suit is clear, and the purpose of the creation of a class of government officials applying and enforcing the statute is clear. The plaintiffs' only error was in naming officials who are in a position to claim they had no personal stake in the outcome. 36 Because of the judicial nature of their responsibility, the chancery clerks and judges do not have a sufficiently personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues on which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). Cf. Mendez v. Heller, 530 F.2d 457 (2d Cir. 1976) (state court judges and clerks joined as defendants in a suit challenging New York's durational residence requirement for divorce found to lack the requisite interest in defending the allegedly unconstitutional statutes). On remand, plaintiffs will have the opportunity to correct this error by substituting as defendants the Mississippi officials with executive responsibility for defending the challenged civil commitment procedures. 37 We perceive neither an Article III problem nor any unfairness to the proper parties defendant in substituting them at this stage of the litigation. Plaintiffs' misidentification of the appropriate defendants may be corrected by amendment to the pleadings substituting as defendants those state officials with the requisite personal stake in defending the state's interests under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The United States Code, Title 28, § 1653 even allows amendments to pleadings to correct defective jurisdictional allegations after judgment has been entered or an appeal taken. Eklund v. Mora, 410 F.2d 731, 732 (5th Cir. 1969), citing Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 207 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1953). To regard the plaintiffs' selection of the wrong governmental officials in mounting this suit as anything more than a remediable pleading defect especially in view of the defendants' failure to raise it until this appeal would be to elevate form over substance. Cf. Neal v. State of Georgia, 469 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1972) (reversing trial court's dismissal of a prisoner's pro se § 1983 complaint on the merits even though the only named defendant in the complaint was immune from suit; case remanded to allow the plaintiff to name proper defendants and to pursue his claim on the merits); Harms v. F. H. A., 256 F.Supp. 757 (D.Md.1966) (giving plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to name the appropriate governmental defendant and to take advantage of available waiver of sovereign immunity and federal court jurisdiction). 38 It is well to note that the Attorney General of the state has been representing the interests of the state throughout. He has been free to present and has presented contentions and argument on behalf of the state and its officials at every step in this case. No prejudice to the state's interests has been shown at this intermediate stage of the proceedings.