Court Opinion

ID: 9465949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:01:06.019252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:27.942346
License: Public Domain

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with all of the opinion save the court’s refusal to hold the sheriff liable vicariously for acts of the sheriff’s deputy within the course and scope of his employment.1 I cannot agree that the Supreme Court decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 1978, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611, in expanding the relief available under § 1983 by interpreting it as applicable to municipalities and overruling Monroe v. Pape, 1961, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492, has also shrunken the scope of that remedial section by forbidding its supplementation with state remedies and causes of action.
Concerning vicarious liability the opinion in Monell said: “a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor — or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 under a respondeat superior theory.” 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d at 636. (Emphasis in original). The Court did not mention the question of state remedies for the invasion of civil rights2 or any of the decisions holding that, where vicarious liability is imposed by state law for a tort, Section 1983 incorporates the cause of action and the remedy created by the state. McDaniel v. Carroll, 6 Cir. 1972, 457 F.2d 968, 969, cert. denied, 1973, 409 U.S. 1106, 93 S.Ct. 897, 34 L.Ed.2d 687 (sheriff); Carter v. Carlson, D.C.Cir.1971, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 398-400, 447 F.2d 358, 368-70, rev’d on other grounds sub nom. District of Columbia v. Carter, 1973, 409 U.S. 418, 93 S.Ct. 602, 34 L.Ed.2d 613 (municipality); Hesselgesser v. Reilly, 9 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 901, 903 (sheriff); Madison v. Gerstein, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 338, 341 (sheriff), Lewis v. Brautigam, 5 Cir. 1955, 227 F.2d 124, 128 (sheriff). See also Taylor v. Gibson, 5 Cir. 1976, 529 F.2d 709, 716 (sheriff); Carter v. Estelle, 5 Cir. 1975, 519 F.2d 1136 (prison administrator); Tuley v. Heyd, 5 Cir. 1973, 482 F.2d 590, 594 (sheriff).
The primary reason my brethren advance to read Monell restrictively is that to eon*1212tinue to read state law into the federal statute “would make the availability of vicarious liability depend upon the location and, in some states, the nature of the tort.” While I agree with their conclusion, the prospect is not alarming. State law still determines much of the reach of Section 1983. The whole section turns on state law; it creates a cause of action against “every person who, under color of any statute . of any State . . . ” deprives another of constitutional or other federal rights. State law sets the statute of limitations, O’Sullivan v. Felix, 1914, 233 U.S. 318, 323, 34 S.Ct. 596, 598, 58 L.Ed. 980, 982; Knowles v. Carlson, 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 369, 370, and state law claims may be joined under the court’s pendent jurisdiction. Miller v. Carson, 5 Cir. 1977, 563 F.2d 757, 760-62; Brown v. Knox, 5 Cir. 1977, 547 F.2d 900, 902, cert. denied, 432 U.S. 906, 97 S.Ct. 2950, 53 L.Ed.2d 1078. See Moor v. County of Alameda, 1973, 411 U.S. 693, 715-17, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1799, 36 L.Ed.2d 596, 613.
State law is neither incidental nor irrelevant to the shape of the tort created by national law for the deprivation of civil rights under color of state law. Unlike my brethren, I read Section 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, not as rejecting but as permitting, if not commanding, the incorporation of state law regarding vicarious liability. That statute, set forth in full below,3 reads in pertinent part:
The jurisdiction in civil . . . matters . . . conferred on the district courts by the provisions of this chapter . 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 eases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court . 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 . . . . (Emphasis supplied).
Assuredly vicarious liability is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Nor would the imposition of liability for the acts of the sheriff’s subordinate, a responsibility long familiar in the common law violate any statute of the United States. My brethren say it would be “directly contrary to Monell’s construction” of § 1983 but this is circuitous logic: Monell does not forbid the incorporation of state law; it merely holds that § 1983 does not of its own force impose vicarious liability. In reaching the conclusion that § 1983 does not create a federal rule of respondeat superior, the Monell Court relied on a parsing of the statute’s language and on its legislative history. 436 U.S. at 690-694, 98 S.Ct. at 2036-38, 56 L.Ed.2d at 635-637. Neither of these factors would preclude respondeat superior as a theory of recovery under § 1983 where state law. allows recovery on this basis. The Supreme Court has not itself found state-created vicarious liability repugnant to Section 1983. In Moor v. County of Alameda, supra, the court in a footnote4 *1213mentioned with apparent approval two court of appeals decisions reaching this result.5
Monell relied on the legislative history of a predecessor of § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, particularly the rejection of the Sherman amendment by Congress. Id. at 692 n.57, 98 S.Ct. at 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d at 636. This amendment would have imposed liability on a municipality for damage inflicted by persons “riotously or tumultuously assembled.” Although this amendment was viewed by some of its opponents as creating a form of vicarious liability, a point that was disputed by the amendment’s proponents, id., it really would have imposed a rule of strict liability, not respondeat superior. The Monell Court itself recognized that the amendment was defeated largely on the basis that it indirectly imposed on municipalities an obligation to keep the peace that could not be imposed directly; the opponents questioned whether such an obligation could constitutionally be exacted of a state agency by the federal government. Id. at 672-682, 692 n.57, 98 S.Ct. at 2029-32, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d at 627-630, 636.
The enactment of a second conference substitute amendment that limited liability to those who, having the power to intervene against Ku Klux violence, “neglect[ed] or refuse[d] so to do,” does indicate, as Monell notes, that Congress did not intend to impose vicarious liability on municipalities as a matter of federal law, “even while accepting the basic principle that the inhabitants of a community were bound to provide protection against the Ku Klux Klan.” Id. at 693 n.57, 98 S.Ct. at 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d at 637 n.57. However, this substitute amendment did not pose the same constitutional problems raised by the Sherman amendment; therefore, its enactment in lieu of the Sherman amendment does not create an inference that Congress had a policy-based objection to imposition of vicarious liability on municipalities where such liability is imposed by state law.
The Monell Court also found support in the statutory language of § 1983, which subjects to liability any person who “causes” a deprivation of civil rights. It concluded that this language reflects a Congressional intent not to impose vicarious liability on governing bodies. Because the word “causes” is not a term of art that necessarily precludes vicarious liability, the Court looked to the intent of Congress in enacting this provision for guidance in interpreting this language. The Court cited the legisla*1214tive history discussed above, and also reasoned that, because respondeat superior is based, in part, on a notion that accidents might be reduced if employers are held liable for the actions of their employees, such liability would impose a duty on municipalities similar to that Congress rejected when it defeated the Sherman amendment. However, even the opponents of the Sherman amendment recognized that civil liability for damages might properly be imposed on a municipality for its failure to control the acts of its citizens where the duty to do so is imposed by state law. See id. at 678-680, 98 S.Ct. at 2030-31, 56 L.Ed.2d at 628-629; referring to remarks of Representative Poland, Cong.Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. at 794 (1871), Burchard, id. at 795, and Willard, id. at 791. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that, in using the word “causes” in section 1983, Congress intended to exclude vicarious liability in those instances where state law provides for it.6 See Blum, From Monroe to Monell: Defining the Scope of Municipal Liability in Federal Courts, 51 Temple L.Q. 409, 412-13 & n.15, 440-41.
Indeed, the use of the word “causes” in § 1983 may indicate that the “person” on whom the act imposes liability is responsible vicariously for the acts of another. See Hague v. CIO, 1939, 307 U.S. 496, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (equitable relief appropriate where government officials acquiesce in acts of subordinates). Application of state law vicarious liability here is consistent with the use of this term because it subjects to liability someone who has “caused” the deprivation in the sense that it was brought about by a person under his supervision, for whose acts he is normally responsible, and whom he might have better trained or directed. Compare Rizzo v. Goode, 1976, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561, (a § 1983 action that did not involve the incorporation of a state law cause of action).
In Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 1969, 396 U.S. 229, 239-40, 90 S.Ct. 400, 406, 24 L.Ed.2d 386, 393-394, the Court held that § 1988 permits either federal or state rules on damages to be utilized in enforcing a cause of action created by federal civil rights laws, whichever better serves the statutory policy. Application of state law vicarious liability would further the protection of civil rights intended by § 1983 by providing a remedy where a judgment-proof employee of any state agency (not only a municipality) infringes an. individual’s civil rights.7 It would also be consistent with federal principles of judicial administration to apply state law on this point.
By a few short sentences the plaintiffs could have incorporated a state law claim into their complaint. Had they done so, the court should certainly have heard the claim under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. UMW v. Gibbs, 1966, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218, 228; Pitrone v. Mercadante, 3 Cir. 1978, 572 F.2d 98, 100, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 827, 99 S.Ct. 99, 58 L.Ed.2d 120. It would have been pointless to require a separate suit in state court involving the identical facts. The only additional issue would have been whether the deputy was acting in the course of his employment, a question that would have required little additional evidence, all of which could have been heard in a few minutes. The plaintiffs, and perhaps others in the future, will suffer as a result of inartful pleading. In fact, in this case it is conceivable that the plaintiff’s state law claim may now be prescribed. These are all pragmatic reasons that reinforce the basic premise: the blending of state remedies *1215into § 1983 is desirable to reinforce its purpose and fulfill its promise, and that union is prohibited neither by § 1983 nor by the Monell reading of that statute.8
It is ironic that Louisiana law gives the plaintiffs greater relief for the violation of their federal constitutional9 rights than this United States Court of Appeals allows. The vindication of constitutional rights sought by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 should not be so grudging. Injured plaintiffs should not be remitted to attempts to satisfy judgments against insolvent defendants when state law would permit them to look to a higher official. Federal courts should give the plaintiffs the same full measure of relief in one suit that they could achieve in two, or could have obtained in a single federal action by more astute pleading.

. Fifth Circuit cases do, of course, hold that a police chief is not liable for the acts of his officers absent his participation in or ratification of them. These cases, however, do not establish a rule that precludes us from looking to state law on the issue of a sheriff’s liability for the acts of his deputy; rather, they reflect a distinction state law commonly makes between the liability of police chiefs and that of sheriffs, which is followed by federal courts in those instances where state law guides the federal rule. Police chiefs generally are not subject to liability for the acts of their fellow police officers under the master-servant rule, see, e.g., Madison v. Gerstein, supra, 440 F.2d at 342; Anderson v. Nosser, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 183, 199, modifíed on other grounds, 5 Cir. en banc 1972, 456 F.2d 835, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 848, 93 S.Ct. 53, 34 L.Ed.2d 89; Jordan v. Kelly, W.D.Mo.1963, 223 F.Supp. 731, 737; Pavish v. Meyers, 1924, 129 Wash. 605, 225 P. 633; Casey v. Scott, 1907, 82 Ark. 362, 101 S.W. 1152; sheriffs, on the other hand, generally are subject under state law to such liability for the acts of their deputies. See, e.g., Madison v. Gerstein, supra; Jordan v. Kelly, supra; Pavish, supra; Casey, supra. See generally, W. Anderson, A Treatise on the Law of Sheriffs, Coroners and Constables § 61 (1941).
This distinction is based on a difference between the position and authority of the “traditional” or “constitutional” sheriff and that of the police chief. Such a sheriff usually has power to hire and fire deputies, who act in his name in a representative capacity. In contrast, the chief of a municipal police department has limited power over subordinate police officers; they are public servants in their own right, and they are hired under, with tenure protected by, civil service laws. Carter v. Carlson, supra, 144 U.S.App.D.C. at 400, 447 F.2d at 370 n.39; Madison v. Gerstein, supra; Jordan v. Kelly, supra. Reflecting this rationale, it has been held that, when a sheriffs authority over his deputies is limited by civil service laws restricting his power to hire and fire them, he is not vicariously liable for their acts. Madison v. Gerstein, supra. No such limitations have been shown to tie the hands of the Franklin Parish sheriff. See La.Const. of 1974, Art. V, § 27, and Art. X, § 2(B)(10); Civil Service Commission v. Foti, La.1977, 349 So.2d 305; Williams v. United States, E.D.La.1973, 353 F.Supp. 1226, 1233-34.

. The Court discussed the problems that would be raised by “creation of a federal law of respondeat superior.” 436 U.S. at 693, 98 S.Ct. at 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d at 637 (emphasis supplied).

. § 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
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. . . .

. We know of no lower court decision that has held otherwise. To the contrary, the lower federal courts have repeatedly rejected *1213the argument § 1988 independently creates a federal cause of action for the violation of federal civil rights. See Pierre v. Jordan, 333 F.2d 951, 958 (CA9 1964); Otto v. Somers, 332 F.2d 697, 699 (CA6 1964); Post v. Payton, 323 F.Supp. 799, 802-803 (E.D.N.Y. 1971); Johnson v. New York State Education Dept., 319 F.Supp. 271, 276 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd, 449 F.2d 871 (CA2 1971), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 409 U.S. 75, 93 S.Ct. 259, 34 L.Ed.2d 290 (1972); Dyer v. Kazuhisa Abe, 138 F.Supp. 220, 228-229 (Haw.1956), rev’d on other grounds, 256 F.2d 728 (CA9 1958); Schatte v. International Alliance of Theatrical State Employees and Moving Picture Operators of United States and Canada, 70 F.Supp. 1008 (S.D.Cal.1947), aff'd per curiam, 165 F.2d 216 (CA9 1948); cf. In re Stupp, 23 F.Cas. 296, 299 (No. 13,563) (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1875).
Petitioners’ reliance in this case upon Hesselgesser v. Reilly, 440 F.2d 901, 903 (CA9 1971), and Lewis v. Brautigam, 227 F.2d 124, 128 (CA5 1955), is misplaced. In Hesselgesser, the Court of Appeals ruled that a sheriff could be held vicariously liable in damages for the wrongful act of his deputy which deprived a prisoner of his civil rights where state law provided for such vicarious liability. The court, to be sure, found authority for the incorporation of state law into federal law in § 1988, but it was acting in the context of a suit brought against the sheriff on the basis of § 1983. Likewise in Lewis, where a sheriff was held to be liable for the civil rights violations of his deputies in light of state law which imposed such liability — a decision which also rested apparently upon § 1988, although that section was not specifically cited — the cause of action was properly based on § 1983. These decisions simply do not support the suggestion that § 1988 alone authorizes the creation of a federal cause of action against the County. And here, as discussed below, § 1983 is unavailable as a basis for suit against the County.
411 U.S. at 704, n.17, 93 S.Ct. at 1793, 36 L.Ed.2d at 606-07, n.17.

. Moor, supra, is cited with apparent approval in Monell, supra, 436 U.S. at 664, n.9, 701, n.66, 98 S.Ct. at 2023, n.9, 2041, n.66, 56 L.Ed.2d at 619, n.9, 642, n.66.

. The cost-sharing or risk allocation justification for respondeat superior liability was insufficient to justify the Sherman amendment because it was subject to the same constitutional objections. See Monell, supra, 436 U.S. at 693-94, 98 S.Ct. at 2037-38, 56 L.Ed.2d at 637-38. Congress did not indicate an intent to preclude cost-sharing where those constitutional objections are absent.

. I imply no prejudgment of the effect of the eleventh amendment if the result is to impose liability on a state agency. See Monell, supra, 436 U.S. at 690-91 n.54, 98 S.Ct. at 2035-36, 56 L.Ed.2d at 635.

. Commentators have suggested that, if Monell precludes incorporation of state law vicarious liability in a § 1983 action, plaintiffs may still be able to recover from municipalities on vicarious liability grounds through an implied remedy action based on the fourteenth amendment. See Blum, From Monroe to Monell: Defíning the Scope of Municipal Liability in Federal Courts, 51 Temple L.Q. 409, 418-19 (1978). Note, Monell v. Department of Social Services, 47 U.Cinn.L.Rev. 670, 676-77 (1978); Note, The Supreme Court, 1977 Term: Liability of State and Local Governments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 92 Harv.L.Rev. 311, 320-21 (1978).

. When the search of the Baskin property occurred, Louisiana law subjected a sheriff to liability for “any act or tort committed by one of his deputies,” LSA-R.S. 33:1433 (1950), within the course of his employment. See, e. g., Foster v. Hampton, La.1977, 352 So.2d 197, 201-02. Thus the Louisiana remedy was available for violation of a duty imposed by federal law as well as a duty imposed by state law. Williams v. United States, E.D.La.1973, 353 F.Supp. 1226.
A Louisiana sheriff may still be subject to such liability for the acts of his deputies, although in 1978, LSA-R.S. 33:1433 was amended by deleting the following paragraph, which contained the language cited above:
That no sheriff of any parish of this state, nor his sureties, shall be liable for any act or tort committed by one of his deputies, or by any person commissioned as deputy sheriff by him, beyond the amount of the bond furnished by said deputy sheriff, unless said deputy sheriff, in the commission of the said act or tort, acts in compliance with a direct order of, and in the personal presence of, the said sheriff, at the time the act or tort is committed.