Court Opinion

ID: 9466406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:14:49.325941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:42.898347
License: Public Domain

SETH, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent from, the views expressed in the majority opinion. This is because to me the question basically is not what particular immunities were available at common law. The majority states that: “Determining the continuing validity of particular common law immunities . . is a judicial function. Instead in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128, the Court was not concerned with particular immunities. It directed that the considerations of public policy be examined to see if these considerations “countenance” immunity under section 1983. The task is thus not to see if *253there was an immunity for a certain governmental agency under common law. Thus immunity as a general concept “under common law” is to be applied if the same considerations of public policy should be carried over. Imbler states: “The common-law rule of immunity is thus well settled.” It is again referring to the doctrine or concept, and this is what we should here do. Thus, again, we are looking at “immunity” as a broader concept, and really looking instead at the “considerations of public policy” which underlie the general doctrine. We should thus focus on the considerations of public policy.
The Supreme Court has, of course, established under section 1983 different levels of immunity depending on the official duties and functions of the individuals concerned. The duties and functions of the individuals here concerned can only be those exercised in the course of their duties as board members. Furthermore, these are the individual duties collectively applied or exercised. This is the only way the Board could function. There is no way to distinguish individual from official capacity. Suits naming officials as individuals is a by-product of Eleventh Amendment cases. Thus if their functions and duties were such as to afford the members the defense of immunity under the Supreme Court standards, it is difficult to see how their collective action can be distinguished to bring about a different conclusion.
Again, on “considerations of public policy,” the majority holds and says there is justification for insuring that “unconstitutional behavior ... no matter how well intentioned” be “deterred.” The majority thus contemplates that the monetary recovery against the Board will deter further “unconstitutional behavior.” It is thus using the argument that future board decisions will be influenced by the possibility of a judgment against the board. This is obviously true, this is what the Board has argued, and this is what immunity is all about. It is the fundamental problem, and as mentioned at the outset, we are to seek the “considerations of public policy” which “underlie the basic common law doctrine of immunity.” This is surely such a consideration of public policy which we are to seek out.
The majority says it must require the District to “make rough predictions about the scope of constitutional rights.” This is, of course, what the Board did. It not only made its “rough prediction,” but it followed our “prediction” in Jones v. Hopper. The forecasting problem on these subjects is obvious, and this is why good faith and reliance must be put into the mix.
We must distinguish opinions and circumstances where the basic considerations have been masked by sovereign immunity. And once again we must consider that in the final analysis the Board here concerned is nothing more than the individuals which are its members. The attitudes, the aims, duties, and desires are the same. The action must be official to meet certain fiscal and other requirements, but it is not changed by becoming official in the context in which we are considering it here. The members owe well defined duties to perform official duties with which they are individually charged. These are mandated by the doctrines of malfeasance and misfeasance.
Monell placed the members collectively in the same position as they were individually. This should not come as much of a surprise. The indication is that the degrees of immunity should be and will be sealed in the same way as for the individual office holders heretofore considered separately. This would seem to present no particular problem. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895; Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128; Smith v. Losee, 485 F.2d 334 (10th Cir.), and other opinions provide the answers.
I would so scale the Board’s action to be with such immunity as affords the defense of good faith. This defense was raised, litigated, and expressly determined by the jury. Thus I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
BARRETT, Circuit Judge, joins in this dissenting opinion.