Legal Document

524 U.S. 381118 S.Ct. 2047141 L.Ed.2d 364 WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners,v.Keith D. SCHACHT. No. 97-461. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 20, 1998. Decided June 22, Syllabus * Respondent Schacht filed a state-court suit against defendants (petitioners here), Wisconsin Department Corrections and several its employees, both in their "personal'' "official'' capacity, alleging that his dismissal from prison guard position violated Federal Constitution federal civil rights laws. The removed case to court then an answer raising "defense'' Eleventh Amendment doctrine sovereign immunity barred claims employees official capacity. District granted individual summary judgment on "personal capacity'' dismissed "official capacity.'' On appeal, challenged only disposition claims, but Seventh Circuit determined removal had been improper because presence even one claim subject bar deprives courts jurisdiction over entire case. Held: otherwise removable does not destroy would exist. A can proceed hear remaining did err doing so this Pp. ____-____. (a) Title 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), which allows defendant remove "any action brought State [federal] district . have original jurisdiction,'' obviously permits containing "arise under'' law, since such see §1331. There are parts respondent's argument is destroyed if those bar. First, distinguishes cases with federal-law state-law include or more claims. In former fall within courts' supplemental jurisdiction. latter comparable ones prohibits deciding. Second, emphasizes "jurisdictional'' nature difference, neither law permitting jurisdiction, nor any other gives power decide claim. Third, looks based upon "diversity jurisdiction'' for analogical authority leading conclusion problem serious destroys respect all i.e., "case.'' analogy unconvincing, differs significantly diversity nondiverse party automatically jurisdiction: No need assert defect. waive defect, consent ignore defect; rather court, noticing must raise matter own. contrast, It grants legal defense. defense, may defect unless it raised by State. Since originally there, state courts. Other conditions-e.g., fact as time was before court-further undermine analogy. ____, (b) Schacht's further argument-that, after asserted lacked thus remand under §1447(c)-is rejected. An ordinary reading §1447(c) indicates refers instance "lacks "case,'' simply Moreover, §1447(c)'s objective-to specify procedures follow remanding removal-is irrelevant question presented here. 116 F.3d 1151, vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. KENNEDY, concurring opinion. Richard B. Moriaty, Madison, WI, petitioners. David E. Lasker, respondent. Justice BREYER 1 us whether "arising court-where some made State, We conclude nonbarred 2 1993, Keith Schacht, guard, stealing items Oakhill Correctional Institution, prison. January 1996, complaint complaint, different alleged deprived "liberty'' "property'' without "due process law,'' thereby violating Const., Amdt. 14, §1; Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 §1983. immediately court. 3 defendants' answer, part "eleventh amendment Constitution, immunity, bars §1983 against'' itself, namely, "defendant [and] named capacities.'' Answer Defenses, App. 14-15. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 159, 165-167, n. 105 3099, 3104-3106, 87 114 (1985) (suit damages officer capacity Amendment); Alabama Pugh, 438 781, 782, 98 3057, 3057-3058, 57 1114 (1978) agency Amendment). 4 After proceedings, considered were is, concluded that, factual allegations true, received "due,'' violate Fourteenth Amendment. Dept. Corrections, 96-C-122-S (WD Wis., Sept. 13, 1996), 31-34. therefore motion Id., at 34. 5 also dismiss motion, stating: 6 "Plaintiff agrees money [by Amendment] pursues injunctive relief. Plaintiff not, however, request relief Defendants' plaintiff's capacities will be granted.'' 30. 7 appealed. He wrong argued court's grant judgment, legally erroneous. During Appeals itself permissible. 1153 (1997). briefing, Ibid. 8 pointed out while presenting arising 1152. added Amendment, interpreted Court, prohibited assertion (citing 11; Hans Louisiana, 134 1, 10, 10 504, 505 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890)). F.3d, 1152-1153 (relying Frances J. Wright, 19 337, 341 (C.A.7 1994)). Hence, held, Court's returned litigation begin again. 1153-1154. 9 certiorari review Circuit's view matter, similar views taken earlier relied, see, e.g., supra; McKay Boyd Constr. Co., 769 F.2d 1084 (C.A.5 1985). Those decisions conflict Courts Appeals. See, Kruse Hawai'i, 68 331 (C.A.9 1995); Henry Metropolitan Sewer Dist., 922 332 (C.A.6 1990); Silver Baggiano, 804 1211 (C.A.11 1986). now conclude, contrary Circuit, II governing provision statute authorizes jurisdiction.'' §1441(a). Judiciary Act 1789, §12, 79-80 (original statute); Mar. 1887, 24 552, corrected Aug. 1888, 25 433 (setting forth terms roughly present law). language section contains law. That explicitly "original actions laws, treaties States,'' This case, requires consider what happens one, more, Does circumstance exist? 11 primary has parts. suggested sufficient satisfy requirement removal. Chicago International College Surgeons, 522 ----, _________, 118 523, 529-530, 139 525 Chicago, example, we wrote: 12 " [The] suffice make "civil actions' jurisdiction' purposes Nothing jurisdictional statutes suggests related somehow alters [the] complaints, virtue jurisdiction.'''Id., S.Ct., 530 (citation omitted). 13 Life Ins. Co. Taylor, 481 58, 107 1542, 95 55 (1987); Franchise Tax Bd. Cal. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust Southern Cal., 463 7-12, 103 2841, 2845-2848, 77 420 (1983). 14 statement, others like it, appear context involving And found significant difference between applies Supplemental along when they "are form same controversy.'' §1367(a); supra, ---------, 529-530. Cf. §1441(c) (explicitly providing discretionary where accompanied "separate independent'' claim). cases, do "pendent'' rather, argued, 15 difference. said, "Claims stand footing than independently removable, affirmative limitation imposed doctrines.'' 1152 340-341, 4). say, according Appeals, §1441(c), Pennhurst School Hospital Halderman, 465 89, 121, 104 900, 919, 79 67 (1984); 341. 16 §1332, leads conclusion, (i.e., "case''). 341); ibid.; F.2d, 1086-1087 (discussing jurisdiction). falls "original'' "jurisdiction'' citizenship among parties complete, there no plaintiff who citizens Carden Arkoma Associates, 494 185, 187, 110 1015, 1016-1017, 108 157 (1990); Strawbridge Curtiss, Cranch 267, 435 (1806). But cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 21; Newman-Green, Inc. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 826, 832-838, 109 2218, 2222-2226, 893 (1989) (Rule 21 order cure defects, instead case). Consequently, indicated cannot "diverse'' long "nondiverse'' defendant. Caterpillar Lewis, 519 61, 68-69, 117 467, 472-473, 136 437 (1996). If appropriate, then, prevent which, stood alone, permitted 341; McKay, 1087. 17 find unconvincing. Insurance Corp. Ireland Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 694, 702, 102 2099, 2104, 72 492 (1982); People's Bank Calhoun, 256, 260-261, 26 101 (1880). Ireland, 2104; Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Swan, 111 379, 382, 510, 511-512, 462 (1884). 18 Rather, defense should choose so. Atascadero Scanlon, 234, 241, 3142, 3146-3147, 171 (1985); Clark Barnard, 436, 447, 878, 882-883, 27 780 (1883). Nor Unless raises it. Patsy Board Regents Fla., 457 496, 515, 19, 2557, 2567, 73 172 (1982). These differences help explain why treated defects differently Where rests Congress' statutory held Inc., 829, 2221 ("When sues action, meet requirements each face dismissal''). But, Statute's assumed potential claim, E.g., U.S., 3057-3058; Papasan Allain, 478 265, 106 2932, 92 209 (1986). Henry, 338-339; Roberts Desert, 870 1411, 1415 1988). Pennhurst, 919 (suggesting analyze applicability whole). 20 considerations For look court-prior St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Red Cab 303 283, 291, 58 586, 591, 82 845 (1938) (" [T]he status disclosed controlling removal, file petition forever lose right remove''). As time, involved "incomplete diversity'' fallen outside By State's participation placed authority. underlying relevant condition (the effort objecting State) could existed prior Maine Thiboutot, 448 9, 7, 100 2502, 2507, 65 555 (1980), might decided defend merits. (Here, waiving alternative Will Michigan Police, 491 64, 2304, 2308, 45 (1989)). "diversity'' "Eleventh Amendment'' lower opinions rest. closely analogous later event, say change subsequent reduction amount issue below levels, previously existing keep 293-295, 592-593; Phelps Oaks, 236, 240-241, 714, 716, 29 888 (1886); Kanouse Martin, How. 198, 207-210, 660 (1853). Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Cohill, 484 343, 350, 614, 619-620 720 (1988) (federal exercise eliminated trial). Here, too, fell invocation particular beyond decide, III 22 respondent made. specific provision, §1447(c). says: "If final appears lacks shall remanded.'' argues least "lacked Brief 19. points says "case remanded'' he contends "district every "remanded'' 23 Even making assumption jurisdiction-a decided-we reject read way. (permitting "the case'' remanded, "non-removable causes action'' joined "claim cause action''). Conceivably, statute's reference well helps Schacht. inapplicable here; applicable, contends. purpose favor interpretation. deals, occurs. entitled: "Procedure generally.'' §1447. substance, differentiates removals defective lack reason, took place limits expired. kind 30 days filing notice. take time. procedural flows kinds reasons lead remand. objective repeat our conclusion: proper means us. these reasons, vacated, remanded proceedings consistent ordered. concurring. joining I write observe reached giving express waived immunity. Insofar record shows, below; briefs here arguments considered, Removal defendants. R.I. P.R. 178 245, 248, 854, 855, 44 1055 (1900); 14A Charles Alan Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Practice Procedure §3731, p. 504 (2d ed.1985). Here consented registered prompt objection electing remove, created difficult confronted situation usually accept consequences own acts. seem simple enough rule once consents turn around Consent waiver 31 Given latitude accorded late stage, obvious. said first sued appearing defending Florida Treasure Salvors, 458 670, 683, 18, 3304, 3314, 1057 (1982) (plurality opinion); Calderon Ashmus, 523 2, 1694, 1697, --- ---- (1998); 99, 8, 907, Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 678, 94 1347, 1363, 39 662 (1974); Ford Motor Treasury Ind., 323 459, 347, 352, 89 389 (1945). 32 my doubts about propriety rule. belated bar, allow facing real risk adverse consequences. Should prevail, bound principles res judicata. lose, void asserting appeal. departure usual rules stems hybrid erected certain respects, bears substantial similarity personal requirements, sua sponte. Permitting stage regarding limit subject-matter 702-704, 2104-2105, (comparing noted inconsistency. Although text framed extent "Judicial 11, precedents "enact[ing] suit, nonwaivable judiciary's Idaho Coeur d'Alene Tribe Idaho, 521 2028, 2033, 138 (1997); Chemerinsky, Jurisdiction §7.6, 405 ed.1994) (noting allowing "seems inconsistent viewing restriction jurisdiction''). 34 eliminate unfairness modifying jurisprudence practice Under inferring failure outset prevented gaining unfair advantage. 12(h)(1). 35 revision circumstances here, however. merits constitute waiver, compulsion voluntarily invokes recognized Gunter Atlantic Coast Line 200 273, 284, 252, 50 477 (1906), "where become submits judicial determination, escape result voluntary act invoking prohibitions Amendment.'' 36 early decision applied principle holding intervention constituted 447-448, 882-884, (1883); Employees Public Health Welfare Mo. Mo., 411 279, 294, 93 1614, 1623, 251 (1973) (Marshall, result) Barnard approval); Petty Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 275, 276, 785, 787, (1959) (same); Missouri Fiske, 290 24-25, 54 78 145 (1933) (same). appeared bankruptcy common fund. Gardner New Jersey, 329 565, 574, 472, 91 (1947). and, defendant, unilateral block appearance makes regarded manner appearances gave rise waivers Gardner. 37 Some following reasoning, waiver. Newfield House, Massachusetts Pub. Welfare, 651 32, 36, 3(CA1), cert. denied, 454 1114, 690, 70 653 (1981); Estate Porter Illinois, 684, 691 1994); 1211, 1214 1986); Gwinn Area Community Schools Michigan, 741 840, 847 1984). inquired, authorized attorneys representing behalf. Petitioners cited qualification oral instant apparent concern held: 38 "It conceded respondents administrative executive officers Indiana state's done proceeding. becomes courts, resort general policy expressed decisions. Article 4, §24 provides: ""Provision made, bringing liabilities originating adoption Constitution; special authorizing brought, compensation person claiming ever passed.' 40 "We interpret indicating prohibiting absence action. legislature presumed clear contrary, conferred withhold seem, therefore, properly courts.'' 467-469, 352-353 (footnotes 41 Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 396, 553, 556, 532 (1975). Notwithstanding quoted authorization, seems me, insuperable obstacle adopting through attorneys, know reason expect easy presume attorney represent bind (for purposes) 43 true recent disfavored constructive required unequivocal. 246-247, 3149-3150, 673, 1360-1361. conduct give far less equivocal amounted direct considerably program insufficient Edelman. questions explored. demonstrated finding put tactical disadvantage, perhaps ought embraced. tend doubt consequences, addressed either course defer addressing until consideration, supported full briefing argument, syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 321, 282, 287, 499.

Classification Label: 8