Opinion ID: 383805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proper Defendants

Text: 14 A suggestion was made at oral argument that the prothonotary and the sheriff are not the proper state officials to name as defendants. Arguably, other state officials would have defended the constitutionality of the postjudgment garnishment procedures more vigorously. Our function, of course, is not to determine the most suitable defendants but to decide whether the complaint has named defendants who meet the prerequisites to adjudication in a federal court. 15 In Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157, 28 S.Ct. 441, 452, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the seminal decision on suits to restrain the enforcement of laws alleged to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that a particular official was properly named as a defendant if the official by virtue of his office has some connection with the enforcement of the act. So long as such a connection existed, the Court held, the suit to restrain enforcement could be characterized as a suit against the official personally and not as a suit against the state. The bar of the eleventh amendment was thereby avoided. Id. at 150-56, 28 S.Ct. at 450-452. 16 Ex Parte Young also explained the nature of the necessary connection. The state official sued in Ex Parte Young was the attorney general, and he had a sufficient connection with the enforcement of the challenged law, which set maximum rates for railroads, in his responsibility for bringing civil enforcement actions against violators. Id. at 157-61, 28 S.Ct. at 452-454. The Court reasoned that these responsibilities made him personally a party to the controversy over the law's enforcement because his bringing of a civil enforcement action against a violator would, if the rate law was unconstitutional, constitute an actionable wrong or trespass to the violator's legal rights. Id. at 153-56, 28 S.Ct. at 451-452. The Court cited for contrast an earlier case, Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 529-30, 19 S.Ct. 269, 274, 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899), where it did not allow a suit against state officials who had no responsibilities to take any personal actions to enforce or execute a law alleged to be unconstitutional and who consequently could commit no actionable wrong against the plaintiffs in connection with the law. See 209 U.S. at 156-58, 28 S.Ct. at 452-453. 17 In the present case, the duties of the prothonotary and the sheriff in connection with the postjudgment garnishment procedures consist of issuing the writ of execution and serving it on the garnishee. Pa.R.Civ.P. 3103, 3108. Their performance of these duties had the same effect on the plaintiff's rights that the Supreme Court found critical in Ex Parte Young. Their actions were the immediate causes of the attachment and freezing of Mrs. Finberg's bank accounts. If the rules that they were executing are unconstitutional, their actions caused an injury to her legal rights. On the basis of the reasoning employed in Ex Parte Young, we find that they are parties to her dispute over the constitutionality of these rules and properly named as defendants in her suit. 18 This conclusion is not altered by the fact that the duties of the prothonotary and the sheriff are entirely ministerial. Under Ex Parte Young the inquiry is not into the nature of an official's duties but into the effect of the official's performance of his duties on the plaintiff's rights. We note that courts often have allowed suits to enjoin the performance of ministerial duties in connection with allegedly unconstitutional laws. See, e. g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 494, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1949, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969); Ackies v. Purdy, 322 F.Supp. 38, 40 (S.D.Fla.1970); Rodriguez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289, 297 (N.D.Ill.1970) (three-judge court), aff'd mem., 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d 677 (1971). 19 Nor do we retreat from this conclusion on any notion that these defendants have an insufficient interest in the constitutionality of the rules to be adverse to Mrs. Finberg. Once the prothonotary and the sheriff have relied on the authority conferred by the Pennsylvania procedures to work an injury to the plaintiff, they may not disclaim interest in the constitutionality of these procedures. That course of action would be inconsistent with their obligations to respect the constitutional rights of citizens. See Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F.2d 588, 595-96 (8th Cir. 1974). In fact, the prothonotary and the sheriff have displayed no lack of interest in defending the constitutionality of the rules. They presented a successful defense in the district court and have continued a vigorous defense in this court. 20 If then the prothonotary and the sheriff are properly named as defendants, the suggestion that other officials should have been named is significant only if these other officials are necessary parties to the dispute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a). Although the issue of necessary parties is not strictly jurisdictional, an appellate court should consider, on its own motion, any plausible argument that the interest of an absent party requires that party's joinder. Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 111, 88 S.Ct. 733, 738, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968). 21 The only other Pennsylvania officials who might be said to have an interest in this constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania's postjudgment garnishment rules are the officials who promulgated them, the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We find that their joinder is not necessary, even if it would be feasible. It is not necessary to afford complete relief among those already parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1). A declaration that the prothonotary and the sheriff violated Mrs. Finberg's constitutional rights would afford all of the relief that she sought at the beginning of this lawsuit: the undoing of the process that led to the attachment and freezing of her bank accounts. She requested no relief that required the involvement of the justices. Compare Ricci v. State Board of Law Examiners, 569 F.2d 782 (3d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was a necessary and indispensable party to a suit challenging a denial of admission to the state bar because a Supreme Court ruling was necessary for admission). Failure to join the justices also will not prejudice their interest in the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(2). Their interest is essentially the same as that of the present defendants, which is a defense of the constitutionality of the rules. From our observation of the progress of the case, we are satisfied that the prothonotary and the sheriff have performed adequately in presenting a defense. See Welsch v. Likins, 550 F.2d 1122, 1130-31 (8th Cir. 1977). 22 We conclude that the district court correctly proceeded with the prothonotary and sheriff as the only state officials named as defendants.