Court Opinion

ID: 9464881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:45:33.09288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:52.028800
License: Public Domain

GRANT, District Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from that portion of the opinion in which the majority takes the position that the extension of the Bivens doctrine to allow a cause of action against the city directly under the Fourteenth Amendment is not constitutionally required and, further, that as a matter of judicial discretion it would not be appropriate. While I would agree, (in light of the holdings in several other Circuits, see e. g., Gagliardi v. Flint, 564 F.2d 112 (3rd Cir. 1977); Calvin v. Conlisk, 520 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1975); Williams v. Brown, 398 F.Supp. 155 (N.D.Ill.1975), and amidst strong indications from the Supreme Court, City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973)), that the Bivens result is not constitutionally required, I cannot agree that it is inappropriate to supply a remedy for the alleged violation of Molina’s constitutional rights directly under the Fourteenth Amendment.
I agree with the majority that the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Monell v. Department of Social Services, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), does not give Plaintiff-Appellant Molina a Section 1983 cause of action against the *855city. However, I would point out that, as I read Monell, a future plaintiff in a similar situation as Molina would certainly be entitled to allege, and attempt to prove that the given actions of a police officer were more than the acts of an employee on a responde-at superior basis and indeed that they rose to the level of an “official policy or custom” employed by the police department as a whole. If sufficiently proved, such a plaintiff, under Monell, would have a direct cause of action against the municipality as an entity responsible under Section 1983.
While the majority takes note of the often heard argument that enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 created the exclusive remedy for constitutional violations committed under color of state authority, the basis for their holding is that it would be an unwise use of judicial power to allow the extension of the Bivens doctrine. The initial rationale for this view is respect for the role of Congress in the implementation of constitutional guarantees. This argument hinges upon the fact that in Bivens, the Supreme Court was effectuating a remedy in a field untouched by Congress, while here, Section 1983 and other statutory legislation exists.
This position states nothing more than because of the fact that Section 1983 exists, the Congress itself has determined that municipalities should not be liable directly under the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem with this argument is that it goes directly against the strong presumption that the courts should always be kept open to redress alleged violations of constitutional rights unless it can be said explicitly that Congress in fact intended to close them. See Hart & Wechsler, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and The Federal System, 332, at 336 (2nd ed. 1973). This policy of clear statement becomes even more important when, as here, a remedy is precluded upon the basis of ambiguous statutory language. The language of Section 1983 itself purports only to authorize a cause of action against “every person” who commits a constitutional violation under color of state law. Not until the Court construed the word “person” in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), could it even be said that Section 1983 did not contemplate municipal liability. That determination in Monroe rested upon the intricacies of the Senate-passed Sherman amendment which was dropped from the 1871 Act because of objections by the House. Gagliardi v. Flint, 564 F.2d 112, 122-126 (3rd Cir. 1977). See also Note, Damage Remedies Against Municipalities for Constitutional Violations, 89 Harv.L. Rev. 922, 942-945 (1976). After the recent decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services,- U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), reversing that analysis of the Court as it pertained to the Sherman amendment, an even stronger argument can now be made that Congress has not determined that municipalities should not be liable under the Fourteenth Amendment. While the legislative history surrounding the 1871 Act might still be relevant in ascertaining the remedies that statute was intended to create, it should not be taken as an explicit indication from Congress that courts should be precluded from creating a constitutional remedy in damages against municipalities. Indeed, it would seem to be an unwise use of judicial power, and inconsistent with the principles of clear statement, to extrapolate from the tarnished analysis of ambiguous statutory language in Monroe and conclude that Congress has explicitly determined to preempt the field of municipal liability when the result seriously restricts the remedies available to a court in constitutional adjudication.
The majority also argues that the principles of federalism caution against extension of the Bivens doctrine to municipalities. The fear is that if federal courts inject themselves too hastily, the state and local governments will be inhibited from seeking resolutions themselves. However, it would seem to the writer that the threat of a federal monetary claim against a municipality would enhance rather than inhibit the potential for resolution. It cannot be denied that recognition of a federal monetary claim might alter the operation of municipal governments, but this should not be objectionable to the extent such changes reflect constitutional values.
*856It should also be noted that piecemeal litigation will often be the result if federalism requires that a plaintiff be left with only his state monetary remedies against a municipality. Of course, a litigant can always resort to his state remedies. But, since the Supreme Court decision in Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976), pendent party jurisdiction is not available in a Section 1983 action to join a municipality sued on a state claim. Thus, the litigant is faced with the burden of a separate lawsuit against the municipality, in addition to his Section 1983 cause of action against the municipal employee. Further, in light of the availability of equitable relief to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, it seems a contradiction to say that the dictates of federalism must bar interference in local affairs. One need only look to the intricate plans imposed by the judiciary in school desegregation cases such as Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), to see that federalism can tolerate intervention into local affairs far beyond any threat created by imposition of money damages.
Finally, the majority argues that while, in Bivens, the Court was concerned that without a cause of action directly under the Constitution, the state remedies left to Plaintiff Bivens might well have been inadequate, here they contend that Section 1983 is adequate and relieves Molina of the predicament faced by the plaintiff in Bivens. This writer cannot conclude that the damage remedies currently provided by Section 1983 for the redress of important constitutional rights can realistically be termed as adequate. This view goes beyond the problems of identification of proper individual defendants, their inability to pay judgments, and jury sympathy toward defendants perceived to be acting in good faith. In the final analysis, the adequacy of any remedy must be viewed in terms of its deterrent effect. The remedy currently allowed by Section 1983 does little to deter the municipality from altering its unconstitutional actions. On the other hand, with a cause of action directly under the Constitution, a municipality would seem to be put to a simple choice. It can either pay damages or institute the changes necessary to eliminate the constitutional deprivation.
The majority concludes that the use of the federal judiciary to create a remedy in this case is inappropriate. I must respectfully disagree and conclude that there can be no more appropriate role for the judiciary than to insure that the interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are given their full meaning and scope. As a result, I would reverse the District Court’s decision, find jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and infer a cause of action against the city directly from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.