Legal Document

444 U.S. 527 100 Supreme Court Reporter 774 63 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1 William or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 STAFFORD, Jr., et al., Petitioners,v.John BRIGGS al. E. COLBY and Vernon Atlantic Walters, Petitioners, versus Rodney D. DRIVER Nos. 77-1546, 78-303. Argued April 24, 1979. Reargued Nov. 7, Decided Feb. 20, 1980. Syllabus In Number respondents, who had been among those subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury in Florida investigating possible conspiracy cause riot, brought suit the District for of Columbia against petitioners (the then Attorney Assistant Northern Florida, Federal Bureau Investigation agent) Department Justice attorney, individually their official capacities, alleging deprive respondents various statutory constitutional rights, seeking damages declaratory judgment. each whom resided were served by certified mail, Columbia, was personally. Respondents relied on § 2 Mandamus Venue Act 1962 (Act), 28 Code KF62 1391(e), which provides part that "[a] civil action defendant is an officer employee any agency thereof acting his capacity under color legal authority . may, except as otherwise provided law, be judicial district (1) resides, (2) arose ., (4) plaintiff resides if no real property involved action," delivery summons complaint such may made mail beyond territorial limits brought. The dismissed action, ruling venue improper court lacked personam jurisdiction over petitioners. Appeals reversed, holding permits actions officials one since attorney resident there proper. 78-303, whose between Soviet Union allegedly opened Central Intelligence Agency, Rhode Island Director Deputy CIA) others, individual interference with respondents' violated damages, well injunctive relief. Petitioners other defendants outside mail. denied defendants' motion dismiss lack personal jurisdiction, venue, insufficiency process, but questions immediate appeal. affirmed Court's order petitioners, CIA when filed, reversed left Government positions at time filing, applied capacities mechanism obtaining them, accordingly proper because there. Held: Section does not apply money capacities. Pp. 533-545. (a) 2's language "is authority" can reasonably read describing character suit, and, so read, covered "civil action" acting, failing act, apparently way. Such referred Act, 1361, gives courts "any nature mandamus compel perform duty owed plaintiff." 536-543. (b) Act's legislative history clearly indicates Congress intended nothing more than provide nationwide convenience plaintiffs are nominally reality Government. A must paid out pocket private happens be—or formerly was—employed plainly "essentially States," thus encompassed provisions 2. (c) If construed govern officers individually, suits could while service—and pressed even after has service—in 95 districts covering 50 states areas within jurisdiction. This would place officers, solely reason service, very different posture from all persons, 1391(b) persons where reside claim arose. intent Congress. 544-545. 186 U.S.App.D.C. 170, 569 Reporter, 2nd 1; 577 147, remanded. Peter M. Brown, New York City, 77-1546. Doris Peterson, 3 Earl Nemser, 4 Elinor Stillman, Washington, C., States, amicus curiae, special leave Court, Melvin L. Wulf, 5 Mr. Chief BURGER, delivered opinion Court. 6 We granted certiorari these cases decide whether contained 1962, 439 1113, 99 1015, 59 71 (1979). 7 * 77-1546 Stafford Briggs 8 1972, petitioner Stuart Carrouth Florida. Guy Goodwin Justice.1 Together they conducted proceedings inquiring into possibility individuals conspired engaged interstate travel riot. appear. At request counsel, Judge responsible called stand asked him state, oath, witnesses represented counsel agent informant replied none was. 9 later this Goodwin, Stafford, Carrouth, Claude Meadow, Investigation. Each sued capacity. alleged testified falsely furtherance rights. respondent sought judgment, $50,000 compensatory $100,000 punitive damages. mail; residence 10 which, amended codified Title Code, provides: 11 "§ 1391. generally 12 13 "(e) authority, arose, (3) situated, action. Additional joined parties accordance Rules Civil Procedure requirements applicable its employees, agencies party. 14 "The shall required rules brought." 15 requested transfer or, alternatively, dismissal process. dismiss, petitioners.2 16 appealed dismissing case Circuit 1391(e) resides. (1977). Because also held infirmity statute applied. It refused "minimum contacts" analysis International Shoe company 326 310, 66 154, 90 L.Ed. (1945), requirement have contacts particular sits court. 78-303 17 Colby Driver 18 From 1953 1973 Airport York, Agency photographic copies certain traveling Union.3 19 Petitioner Walters appointed 1972; 1973. Both office 1975 behalf themselves others CIA, Island. Their both present former declaratory, injunctive, monetary relief, including $20,000 letter member class. 20 All moved claiming substantial failed allege activity occurred motions 21 First it filing. Helms, 147 (1978).4 them. rejected petitioners' challenge constitutionality statute, minimum relevant situation. II 22 Soon passage Judiciary 1789, Statutes-at-Large 73, trial power issue writs mandamus. McIntire Wood, Cranch 504, 420 (1813). derived writ common law State Maryland, sole exception. Kendall ex rel. Stokes, Pet. 524, 1181 (1838). 23 To avoid jurisdictional obstacle, litigants mandamus-type relief often instead. But most superior indispensable See, e. g., Williams Fanning, 332 490, 68 188, 91 1823 (1947). fiction rank only stationed usually Columbia—effective service obtained And restrictive effect, joinder Columbia. See (1946 ed., Supp. II), Public Law 89-714, 80 1111 (1966). net result distant parts country injury acts omissions faced significant expense inconvenience bringing enforcement claimed 24 response problem, enacted 1962. States.5 similarly expanded choice authorizes located filed. 25 legislation makes convenient aggrieved file argue, however, much intended. They contend using general include provision actions, individuals. 26 refer "a action." Recitation fact, begins our inquiry, noted century ago similar problem interpretation: 27 words used clause taken themselves, literally construed, without regard object view, seem sanction plaintiff. mode expounding never adopted enlightened tribunal—because evident many defeat Legislature accomplish. settled that, interpreting will look merely used, take connection whole objects policy law. ." Brown Duchesne, How. 183, 194, 595 (1857). Looking first "the statute," two things apparent: explicitly limited "action[s] 1361. "in (emphasis added). highlighted language, cast tense, suit. So acting—or act—in way.6 actions" i. e., mandamus." 29 Our stop statute; we law." How., 595. "give [the Act] construction carry execution according true meaning," ibid., turn history. Schlanger Seamans, 401 487, n. 4, 995, 997, 251 (1971). Culbert, 435 371, 374, 98 1112, 1114, 55 349 (1978); Train Colorado Interest Research Group, 426 1, 9-10, 96 1938, 1942, 48 434 (1976). III 30 H.R. 10089, 86th Cong., Sess. (1960), precursor bill eventually became Act. Congressman Budge, author explained purpose: 31 "As now, opportunity review decision charge [in field] matter how arbitrary capricious, too expensive come back here [to C.] litigate it." Hearings 10089 Subcommittee House Committee Judiciary, Sess., 19-20 (May June 2, 1960).7 32 As happens, dialogue witnesses, Members, Counsel reveals considerable initial confusion extent proposed solution. Of course, purpose hearing expose problems, probe solutions, reach consensus. point Poff, obvious effort clarify responses, witness, Donald MacGuineas: 33 "Mr. POFF. Wouldn't you say author's objective give citizen legitimate right sue wrong committed? 34 MacGUINEAS. difficulty, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions so, Congressman, your statement, speak Now, proposition itself raises difficult complicated touched upon my appearance last week. 35 "You actually man i[s] latter, sense Government." Id., 54. 36 witness: 37 "Suppose care body seems government something he capacity, added following language—'acting authority'?" 61. 38 MacGuineas' response, now recognized prophetic, might misinterpreted person office. This, said, raise "serious questions" allowing plaintiff's home same kind residence. Chairman, Forrester, ranking senior Member, stated shared concern. 62-63. 39 Albert Maris, Chairman Standing Practice Judicial Conference "injustice" avoided requiring "That," said normal procedure That what ordinarily ordinary suit." 86. Dowdy, four Members present, said: 40 "Speaking talking about, don't understand consideration maybe being individual." 87. 41 When Maris view involving involved, Dowdy agreed: "They [proposed legislation]." Ibid. 42 Finally, near conclusion hearing, bill's author, stated: 43 "We always get off slander type am all. MacGuineas morning sure legislation, think perhaps true, intention [within bill] tort employees. do determination made." 102 44 Following hearings, redrafted 10089. revised version, 12622, things, "or phrase "acting capacity." Far master key unlock door individual, specifically alleviate hardships caused relatively narrow nagging Report clear: 45 "By employee, committee intends make section though apparent scope citizen. essence circumvent remains doctrine sovereign immunity. considerations demand locally rather require based individual. There intention, alter insofar resulting official's concerned." H.R.Rep.No. 1936, 3-4 (1960) 46 Committee's statement legislation's sheds light congressional intent: 47 bring U. S. existing limitations Columbia." context, confines thrust actions. supra, 533-534. continues: 49 "Section [§ 1391(e)] bill. Its 1. designed permit essentially simply Washington sued." added).8 Although 12622 passed 1960, Senate adjourned it. 536, 87th 1st (1961). reintroduced next republished (1961), Senate. 51 solicited comments Justice. suggested, inter alia, prudent effect reform amending Administrative "suits judgments officers" "unquestionably eliminate[d]." Letter General White Senator Eastland (Feb. 28, 1962), reprinted S.Rep.No. 1992, (1962), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News Page 2784. commented suggestions proffered Department, instance all.9 Courts rely failure respond indicating 52 persuaded negative inference. Several passages affirmatively state bill: exactly found Report. Compare "[t]he bill, amended, facilitate administrative actions," 2785 added), afford basis reading comment appears Report: 53 current respecting contrary sound equitable administration justice. Frequently, determinations field. either event, States. defended district. attorneys every Requiring defend places burdensome imposition." 3, 2786 54 Here again confirmation thought expand "required" defendant. What emerges Committees, 1391(e).10 56 overbroad interpretation (1971), question habeas corpus proceeding custodian, chain command, detained, Court." 489, S.Ct., 997. While recognizing reference did answer. Douglas 57 "Although process 'civil States', barren indication extended broaden previously 2." U.S., 4. (Emphasis added.) 58 noted, Columbia" mandamus, clear purport intend given sweeping definition argued case, determine governed. IV cover buttressed consequences broad urged us respondents. conditions leaving office, serious implications An employed numerous naming her Without doubt, lies districts, pending dozen several time. Even burden defending multiple onerous, burden. rarely himself obliged heard; obliged, expense. leaves involvement effectively ends successor carries on. No cost incurred, later. understanding ameliorate inaction 3; 3. 60 Suits officeholder personally liable quite different. 1391(b), reside, arose."11 61 is, concerned justice," 2785, impose serving variety Absent infer nor interpret result. laws ought spirit made—that founded justice should strained technical constructions evidently contemplated, departing principle legislating, going far accomplish." 197, 62 remanded further consistent opinion. Reversed 64 WHITE took cases. 65 MARSHALL STEWART, BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 67 today holds wrongful nominal defendant, grievance disagree. means says, applies own wrongdoing. types authority.1 Larson Domestic Foreign Corp., 337 682, 69 1457, 93 1628. enabled party obtain directed acted unconstitutionally excess authority. theory underlying 689-690, 1461-1462. But, act through agents, fact itself. second contrast, direct 687, 1460. typically assess liability officer. kinds suits. part: 70 "A 72 Since described above properly characterized authority," fall plain meaning 1391(e).2 Thus, terms, unambiguously extends officer, here, directly himself. 73 Relying considerations, turns history, enacting (Act) remove obstacles indicates, specific, exclusive, concern adding ensure Thus concludes coextensive purportedly addressed. find support policies Act.3 74 purports familiar rule " 'in law.' Ante, 535, quoting Steelworkers Weber, 443 193, 201-202, 2721, 2726-2727, 480. reliance misplaced, neither public inconsistent 1391(e). 75 forerunner introduced H.R.10089, (1960). provided: 76 him, resides." hearings submission written H.R.10089 new parallels closely H.R.12622, sections; vested hear relief;4 broadened alternatives authority." Congress, H.R.1960, minor amendments, 77 why ambit capacity," says coverage announced members during accompanied subsequent versions 78 agree principal proponent Representative basic addressed—that, obstacles, "there field], D.C.] 79 record testimony manner During representative observed drafted, remain unresolved problems context sidestep 32-33. Subcommittee's addition here: authority.' incorporated bills. accompanying bills confirm undoubtedly provision. Whatever original bills—all included authority"—indicated addressed indicated arises course performing duty." H.R.Rep.No.1936, (1960); H.R.Rep.No.536, (1961); S.Rep.No.1992, 81 least Reports, Committee, issued recommended tied 6. "This," observed, "[would] unquestionably eliminat[e] officers." Ibid, 2789. letter, steps whatsoever exclude Rather, above, B 82 instructive shortly signed Katzenbach circulated memorandum Attorneys assist them newly legislation. memorandum, noted: 83 injunctions mandatory example, libel (which defends ground statements absolutely privileged .) statute." 84 regarded 85 significance twofold. First, represents contemporaneous wholly odds Second, long assumed responsibility representing longstanding carried forth regulations. Regulations §§ 50.15, 50.16 86 circumstances, representation substantially undercuts argument construe undermine "sound see 2786, "plac[ing] arose.' 785. overlooks willing relieved greatest 87 argue principles due militate construing position mean say, exercise lacks sufficient sits.5 88 concede previous area Fourteenth Amendment acquire exist forum State. Reasoning analogy, traditional notions fair play inherent Due Process Clause Fifth limit 89 short answer requires created Shaffer Heitner, 433 186, 97 2569, 683; 95. unfair assume litigating inconvenient forum, named involve residents exists. recourse event place. "[f]or interest justice, [to] 1404(a). unreasonable expect sympathetically change show prejudiced transferred forum. For reasons stated, whatever. Accordingly, affirm making request. He grounds prosecutorial denied. 384 F.Supp. 1228 (DC 1974), aff'd, 179, (1977), cert. denied, 437 904, 3089, 1133 (1978). Select Study Governmental Operations respect Activities, Final Report, 94-755, Book Pages 559-677 concluded drafted officials. question, declined review. 1016, Action Congress' use "under immunity doctrine. infra, 538-539. copy unpublished lodged Clerk Respondents' isolated face consistently expressed Government, decline treat cryptic sentence dispositive intent. Blackburn 608 919 (CA2 1979). arguable verbatim mentions duties. Inasmuch passage, like recitation earlier 8, obviously Department's letter. deciding identity controlling; inquiry "who pay judgment?" Commerce 1628 (1949). Here, judgment sought. Under Colby, Eastern Virginia, some headquarters CIA. purposes brevity, hereafter argues tense ("[a] added)), applying notes, necessarily presently 535-536. falls mark, still service. finds turned sui generis "technically 'civil,' [are] automatically subject governing actions." modifications, grounds, confer flaw rule, obtains demonstrate defect effected. cannot seriously authorize extraterritorial governed [Federal Procedure] moreover, confirms

Classification Label: 8