Court Opinion

ID: 9425282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:17.199467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:54.490048
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
The claims in the instant actions arose out of the May 1969 People’s Park disturbance, in which petitioners were allegedly injured by an Alameda County deputy sheriff who was performing duties at that time on behalf of the County. Petitioners brought actions against several deputies, the sheriff, and the County. The complaints against the County alleged federal causes of action under the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and pendent state claims under § 810 et seq. of the California Government Code. Both federal and state causes of action were premised on the theory that the County could be held vicariously liable for the acts of the deputies. The County subsequently filed motions to dismiss the claims against it in each case, contending that, as to the Civil Rights Act claims, the County was not a “person” who could be sued under the Act. The trial court ultimately granted these motions and ordered that all claims against the County be dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed these orders of the District Court, Moor v. Madigan, 458 F. 2d 1217 (CA9).
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be hable to the party in*723jured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
In Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, we held that a municipality was not a “person” within the meaning of that Act. The issue was whether or not the Act made municipalities liable in damages, id., at 187-191, that claim being strongly pressed because “private remedies against officers for illegal searches and seizures are conspicuously ineffective and because municipal liability will not only afford plaintiffs responsible defendants but cause those defendants to eradicate abuses that exist at the police level.” Id., at 191. We certainly said, as the Court holds, that a municipality was not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. Ibid. But § 1983 permits equitable relief, as well as damages, not directly involved in Monroe v. Pape but a matter we explored at some length last Term in Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225.
There may be overtones in Monroe v. Pape that even suits in equity are barred. Yet we never have so held. Certainly a residuum of power seems available in § 1983 to enjoin such bizarre conduct as the offering to the police of classes in torture. More realistically, § 1983 as construed in Mitchum v. Foster might under some circumstances authorize a federal injunction against a municipal prosecution of an offender. Such being my understanding of Monroe v. Pape and Mitchum v. Foster, I would hold that the County of Alameda in this case is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983 for a narrow group of equity actions and that therefore the District Court did not lack jurisdiction.
Although the complaint in the instant action asked for damages, it also prayed for any further relief that the court might deem just and proper. Since the complaint was dismissed at the threshold of the litigation, it is impossible to determine whether or not grounds for equitable *724relief would have emerged during the normal course of the litigation. But the prayer for any “further relief” would embrace it.
In any event an amended complaint could make the matter clear beyond peradventure.
That raises the question as to the liability of the County of Alameda, by reason of 42 U. S. C. § 1988, which reads:
“The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of this chapter and Title 18, for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.”
Under California law “[a] public entity may sue and be sued.” (Govt. Code § 945), although a public entity has a general immunity from suit involving injury. Id., § 815. Moreover, an officer, while generally immune, may become liable in damages, if he uses unreasonable force against a citizen, in which event the municipality loses its immunity. That at least is the way I read Scruggs v. Haynes, 252 Cal. App. 2d 256, 60 Cal. Rptr. 355.
Since § 1983 does not allow damages against the mu*725nicipality in a federal suit, federal laws “are not adapted to the object,” and are “deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies,” within the meaning of § 1988. While it is “inconsistent” with the “laws of the United States,” as those words were used in § 1988, to enforce a federal cause of action for damages against the County of Alameda, it arguably is within the scheme of the state cause of action. This is not to allow state law to enlarge the scope of § 1983. Section 1983 by reason of its equity provision merely gives “jurisdiction” to the District Court, while § 1988 allows the District Court to apply state law.
As we said in Mitchum v. Foster:
“This legislative history makes evident that Congress clearly conceived that it was altering the relationship between the States and the Nation with respect to the protection of federally created rights; it was concerned that state instrumentalities could not protect those rights; it realized that state officers might, in fact, be antipathetic to the vindication of those rights; and it believed that these failings extended to the state courts.” 407 U. S., at 242.
The federal right here is not to obtain damages but to obtain some kind of equitable relief. Application by the federal court of a state cause of action for damages is therefore in harmony with both § 1983 and § 1988. As we stated in Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229, 240, “This means, as we read § 1988, that both federal and state rules on damages may be utilized, whichever better serves the policies expressed in the federal statutes. . . . The rule of damages, whether drawn from federal or state sources, is a federal rule responsive to the need whenever a federal right is impaired.” The federal right here is the alleged “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” as these words are used in § 1983.