Hampton v. State of Michigan
377 N.W.2d 920
Mich. Ct. App.
1985
Check Treatment

*1 v STATE OF MICHIGAN HAMPTON 6, 1984, Lansing. at December No. 73024. Submitted Docket Decided 19, appeal applied for. to August 1985. Leave Facility, Hampton, at Riverside Correctional an inmate Alvin personal representative Hampton, the Alma suicide. committed deceased, against Hampton, filed suit the estate of Alvin alleging Michigan the of Claims defen- State psychiatric provide properly observe and care failed to dant suicide, violating prevent dece- the decedent so equal protection right rights process his to due dent’s court, punishment. The from cruel and unusual be free Brown, J., liable under USC found defendant Thomas L. and awarded for the death of decedent appealed. $75,000, plus Held: interest. Defendant Michigan "person” is not within the The 1. State inapplicable meaning is 42 USC 1983. That section therefore finding judgment the trial court’s defen- the state and be liable under that section must reversed. dant rights state also barred civil claim 2. Plaintiffs immunity. by governmental Reversed. P.J., Gillis, disagreed with conclusion 1983, of USC is not but state ground that action is in the on the concurred reversal by governmental immunity. barred Rights — 1. Civil Actions. upon plaintiff, A order state a which relief claim 1983, alleging granted must in an action a violation of USC (1) allege deprivation privileges, or immunities se- (2) (3) by acting the constitution and laws cured (42 117.2[1]; under color of state law GCR MCR 2.116[C][8])._ References in Headnotes Points 2d, Rights seq. Am Jur Civil et [1-3] Quick topic See the annotations the ALR3d/4th Index Discrimination. State Opinion op the Court Rights — — Civil "Person”. term The in 42 USC 1983 does not include states and agencies. *2 Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent P.J. Rights — — 3. Civil "Person”. "person” rights

A state be considered a under a federal civil (42 rights statute for violation of federal constitutional USC 1983). Goodman, Eden, Millender & Bedrosian (by Wil- Goodman), liam H. plaintiff. Kelley, Attorney

Frank J. Louis J. General, Caruso, J. General, Louis Porter and Solicitor and Weller, H. George General, Attorney Assistants defendant. P.J.,

Before: J. H. and M. J. Kelly and K. N. JJ. Sanborn,*

K. N. J. Defendant appeals right as of Sanborn, 18,1983, from a July judgment following entered a trial nonjury the Court Claims. The trial court found defendant liable under USC 1983 for the suicide death of plaintiffs decedent, Alvin Hampton, which 6, 1978, occurred on December while decedent was serving prison term at Riverside Correctional Facility. The court awarded $75,000, plus interest.

Defendant contends the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction to hear brought a claim the State of Michigan under and that the state is not within the meaning of 1983. We find that the state not that, within the meaning of 1983 and event, any governmental plaintiff’s bars * judge, sitting Appeals by assignment. Circuit on the Court of 144 Accordingly, wé the state.

§ 1983 claim reverse. allegation plaintiffs solely on was tried

The case rights un- civil violated decedent’s that defendant was on defen- §The 1983 claim based der properly pro- alleged and observe failure to dant’s psychiatric decedent, so as care vide violating prevent rights suicide, decedent’s equal protection process and

to due punish- right from cruel and unusual free Eighth Fifth, Fourteenth ment under United States Constitution. to the Amendments provides: 42 USC 1983 statute, who, any color ordi- "Every nance, custom, usage, any State or regulation, or Columbia, subjects, or causes Territory or the District or subjected, any citizen of United States to be jurisdiction thereof person within the other deprivation *3 rights, privileges, or immunities any of laws, by shall be liable suit in secured the other the Constitution and law, or equity, an at party injured action proper proceeding for redress.” part originally appeared of the The statute Rights purpose § 1983 Civil Act of 1871. The of ensure that an individual when enacted was to had tutional deprivation of his consti- a cause action for rights against represented the those who Chapman capacity. some See v Houston Rights Organization, 600, 617-618; Welfare US (1979). 1905; L 2d S Ct 60 Ed In order granted upon state a relief be claim which 2.116(C)(8), § 1983 under MCR in a (1) allege deprivation any action must privileges, by or immunities the constitu- secured (2) (3) by "person”, acting laws, tion and a color of state law. agencies any a

Whether a state or of its is v State of has been the sub- § ongoing debate in both federal and state ject Jordan, 332; In 99 S courts. US Ct L Supreme Ed 2d 358 the rule that a suit federal court by reaffirmed parties seeking impose liability which private from funds in the state trea- paid public must be is barred the Eleventh Amendment. sury by Congress US 337. The court held that did not general language intend of 1983 to over- "by § sovereign ride the traditional of the States”. 440 US 341. It further stated: question supporters "There no that both the Rights opponents of the Civil Act of 1871 believed that impor- many the Act ceded to the Federal Government tant powers previously had been considered province within the exclusive of the individual States. * * * logic, surrounding But neither the circumstances Amendment, adoption of the Fourteenth nor the legislative history compels, of the 1871 Act or even warrants, leap proposition from this to the conclusion Congress general language that Act intended of the constitutionally guaranteed to overturn the immu- * * * nity importance of the several States. Given the sovereign of the States’ immunity, traditional if in fact Congress the Members of the 42d 1 of believed the 1871 Act overrode that there surely would have lengthy point been debate on this it paraded would have opponents been out along Act with the they thought other evils that Instead, result from passed only the Act. with limited debate and Congress not one Member of men- tioned the Eleventh Amendment or the direct financial consequences enacting to the only 1. We can conclude that significant this silence on the matter is itself *4 legislative indication of the 1.” intent § (Footnotes omitted.) 440 US 341-343.

Although Quern involved Eleventh Amendment which, course, immunity, inapplicable to suits App 144 have courts court, appellate other in state brought 1983 was language that Quern § interpreted immunity existing abrogate intended to not a state is holding that to a states, as tantamount Indeed, this was 1983. "person” within not a § Brennan, concurring in Justice taken position power Congress’s light that in noted Quern. He immunity the constitutional abrogate against states suits private providing states that officials, holding state abrogate Eleventh not intended 1983 was § effect, holding was, Amendment the term not intend Congress did that states. include purposes of 'person’ for were a "If a State Amend-

therefore, immunity under the Eleventh its (Footnote abrogated by the statute.” ment would omitted.) 350-351, concurring. Justice Brennan 440 US interpreted may be It is true that Amendment Eleventh dealing with the states’ only that possibility leaving open against 1983 actions permit intended to Congress however, it unlikely, courts. We find states state intended to enact have Congress violation of civil creating remedy statute precluding private time while at the same actions under the stat- bringing individuals from permitting but against ute states federal court in state courts. We against such actions states 1983 was intended likely believe it is more that § remedy the existence of a to create and insure state law acting under color of persons itself. rather than have panels recognize We two this is a within held that a state Smith 340; 333 NW2d Michigan, *5 799 v State of Dep’t Health, Karchefske v of Mental (1983); 50 (1985).1 App 1; However, 143 Mich 371 876 NW2d of other states which majority have addressed the question opposite have reached the conclusion. See Mezey State, v 1060; 161 Cal 3d 40 App Rptr 208 Cal Hambley State, v (Fla (1984); 459 So 2d 408 App, University Connecticut, Fetterman v 1984); 192 City Shaw v of St 539; Conn 473 (1984); A2d 1176 Louis, (Mo Rains v State 1983); 664 SW2d 572 App, Washington, (1983); Thomas v New York Comm 660; 100 2d Wash 674 P2d 165

Temporary State Regulation Lobbying, on 83 App Div 2d aff'd 56 723; (1981), 442 NYS2d 632 656; NY2d 451 DeVargas v 708; NYS2d 436 (1982); NE2d 1310 State, (Ct 447; 97 NM 640 P2d 1327 App, 1981); Green, State v 1981); Boldt (Alaska, 633 P2d 1381 State, v cert 101 566; (1981), Wis 2d 305 133 NW2d den 454 973; 524; US 102 S Ct 70 L Ed 2d 393 Maine, Thiboutot v State of (1981); 405 A2d 230 grounds (Me, 1979), aff'd on other 1; 448 US 100 S Edgar State, v 2502; L Ct 65 Ed 555 (1980); 2d 92 cert 217; den Wash 2d (1979), 595 P2d 534 444 US Taylor 1077; 100 1026; S Ct 62 L (1980); Ed 2d 760 Mitzel, v App 665; Cal 3d Rptr Cal (1978).

While positions merit, both it opin- have is our ion based on Quern and decisions of other states Dep’t Health, The Court in Karchefske v of Mental 143 Mich 1; (1985), 375 NW2d 876 held that a state is a but that sovereign immunity, action was barred citing (1979). the state’s traditional Jordan, 332; 1139; US 99 S Ct 59 L Ed 2d 358 Michigan, App 340; Both Smith v 122 Mich 333 NW2d 50 (1983), Karchefske, supra, part Dep’t relied in on Monell v City York, 2018; Social Services of the of New 436 US 98 S Ct municipalities L Ed 2d 611 "persons” which held that are applies. however, Supreme Quern, which supra, The Court in emphasized government "holding the Court’s in Monell was limited to local part units which are not considered of the State for * * purposes,’ Eleventh Amendment 436 US at fn 54 pursuant This Court has issued a certification of conflict order 1984-2, lxxxii, Administrative Order No. 418 Mich on the issue whether the state is a within 42 USC 1983. App 794 H. P. J. J. Gillis, Partial Dissent Partial Concurrence not intended was term agencies. states and

to include No costs. Reversed. Kelly, J., concurred.

M. J. and dissent (concurring part P.J. *6 conclu ing part). disagree I with the the state is not a sion that Rather, adopt I the reason of 42 Karchefske ing by Judge advanced Wahls Health, 1; 371 NW2d Dep’t of Mental 143 Mich agree (1985), However, I point. on this because precluded the state is on this action Ross v grounds governmental Co, Power 363 NW2d Consumers I concur in the reversal.