Haywood v. Drown

84] 851 NYS2d NE2d [881 (Ac- Drown, Respondent. Curtis Appellant, Haywood, Keith 1.) tion No. al., Respondents. et v Pat Smith Haywood, Appellant,

Keith 2.) (Action No.

Argued October 17, 2007; decided November POINTS OF COUNSEL (Jason Murtagh, LLP Dechert E. bar, of the Pennsylvania LLP, counsel) and Dechert vice, admitted hac of pro New York (Gary J. Mennitt of City counsel), appellant. I. Correction § Law 24’s bar alleged § of USC 1983 claims in state courts (Woodward v New State of would violate the Supremacy Clause. Michigan York, Rose, Howlett v Will v 852; 356; 23 AD3d 496 US ept. Police, State v Brown State New 58; 491 US D of of York, York, v Gittens State New 172; 89 NY2d 132 Misc 2d of Casey, Felder v Martinez v California, 399; 131; 487 US US Wyatt Carey Piphus, Cole, v v 277; 158; 504 US 247; US Wade, 30.) Smith v 461 US II. The courts below misinterpreted 24, Correction § Law an indemnification statute not designed eliminate 42 §USC 1983 damages from state court. (Robert Attorney Cuomo, General,

Andrew M. M. Gold- Albany Nancy Spiegel farb, Barbara D. Underwood A. counsel), of 24, § I. respondents. circumscribing jurisdiction of the state courts over claims for damages against the New York State of Department Correctional Services person (Arteaga v State nel, does not violate the Supremacy Clause. Cepeda Coughlin, York, New v 212; 72 NY2d 128 AD2d Korman, Matter McGee v LaValle v 602; 225; NY2d 70 NY2d Hayden, People Tichenor, v 155; 98 NY2d 89 NY2d 522 US Michigan Dept. Police, Will v 491 US Maine v 918; 58; Thiboutot, Council, 448 US National Private Truck Inc. v 1; Comm’n, Rose, Oklahoma Tax Howlett v 582; 515 US 496 US Gerdes, 178.) Brown v 356; US II. Correction Law 24 is (Matter C., Barbara not an indemnification statute. 64 NY2d Majewski 866; 577.) Dist., v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School 91 NY2d Murtagh-Monks, Johnson, Susan Ithaca, Karen Patricia Betsy Hutchings, City, Warth, Banks, Steven New York John Albany, Legal O’Connor, Boston and for Prisoners’ Ser- Alfred vices of New York others, amici curiae. I. Correction Law interpreted by 24, as below, the court violates the (Monell preempted by Clause because it is federal law. v New City Dept. Servs., York 658; Rose, Social 436 US Howlett v 356; Houseman, 496 US 130; v Maine v Thibou Claflin tot, 1; 448 US Martinez v California, 277; v Woodward Cepeda Coughlin, State New 852; AD3d v 128 AD2d Coughlin, Coughlin, 995; Baker v 12; 77 F3d Brown 869 F 328.) Supp Degrafinreid Supp 196; Ricks, 452 F 2d II. Correc interpreted by tion Law below, the court violates the Supremacy litigation Clause it because burdens the 42of USC (Felder Casey, Cepeda Coughlin, 1983 claims. v 131; 487 US v 128 995; York, AD2d Woodward v State 852; New 23 AD3d of Cavanaugh Doherty, York, Brown v State 172; New 89 NY2d v of Wright Coughlin, Supp 243 92; AD2d v F 31 2d 225 F3d Murray 647; Waldron, Riviello v 297; 47 NY2d v 36 AD3d Reif, 786.) 1167; Lewis, v 139 Misc 2d III. Correction Law Bouffard § interpreted by 24, as below, violates the (Testa right. Clause because it discriminates a federal v Katt, 386; Houseman, 330 US v 130; 93 US Second Claflin Employers’ Liability Douglas Cases, 1; 223 US v New N. Co., H. & H. 377; R. 279 US McKnett v & St. Louis San Co., Francisco R. 292 230; Rose, Howlett v 356; 496 US Bradley County Albany, v Alvarez, 1050; 161 AD2d Mann v of Cooper 242 AD2d 318; Industries, Inc. v Leatherman Tool 424.) Group, Supremacy § Inc., TV Correction Law violates principles it because offends of federalism ousting significant the state courts from a area of (Immuno adjudication. Moor-Jankowski, constitutional AG. v 137.) Marbury [5 US] 235; Madison, NY2d v 1 Cranch If V Cor § interpreted Legislature rection Law is as the intended—to simply indemnify Department the New York State of Cor employees—then rectional Services the statute need not be (People People Dietze, 47; struck as unconstitutional. 75 NY2d Coughlin, Supp Barber, 378; 289 NY 196; Brown v 869 F Mat Chatham, ter Burrows v Board Assessors Town for 250.) AD2d THE OPINION OF COURT J. Graffeo, Law York lack juris-

Pursuant to Correction New courts seek- or federal to entertain civil actions diction state in this correction officers. The issue ing money damages against Clause of case is whether section violates adjudi- cannot United States Constitution because courts federal 42 USC 1983 causes of action violations alleging cate is not unconstitutional. rights. of civil We hold the statute

I as a second violent Haywood Plaintiff Keith was sentenced after 15-to-30-year imprisonment a term of felony offender eight in the first degree convicted being escape at the counts of in the first While incarcerated robbery degree.1 of two Facility, was the plaintiff Attica Correctional assaulting in June one a correc- misbehavior reports urinalysis sep- test. After failing tion officer and the other of both hearings, guilty arate administrative was found plaintiff later, About another misbehavior year disciplinary charges. with mail solicita- charging plaintiff improper was issued report A plaintiff guilty tion. officer determined that hearing that charge. these com- findings, plaintiff

In the aftermath of disciplinary unrelated, menced two se civil actions pro Court on USC 1983 premised employees (DOCS).2 The first Services Department of Correctional Drown, hear- that defendant Curtis the DOCS complaint alleged solicita- improper officer mail ing plaintiff guilty who found that his de- tion, hearing, failed to a fair and impartial conduct evidence and that termination was based on insufficient (1st 1992), 450, Dept 80 People Iv denied Haywood, 1. See v 184 AD2d (1992). NY2d 904 during complaints his term of pro Plaintiff filed other se 2. has also Co., 07 CV e.g. Conagra Foods Retail Prods. No. confinement 0130, Kollar regarding ingestion of al- [complaint [WD 2007] 2007 WL 1371105 NY Tobacco, Co., L.P., butter]; peanut Haywood Republic legedly tainted 1063004, 2005, [complaint alleged exposure *1 [WD 05-CV-842A] NY No. WL smoke]; Haywood Inc., cigarette v Nabisco 2005 WL to second-hand Ct, “Chip’s Ahoy” cookie County [complaint that a [Sup 2005] NY asserted 101, Koehler, tooth]; Haywood v 78 F3d penny his contained a that cracked force]; Hudson, Haywood v [complaint of use [2d 1996] Cir of excessive 1994, 877, CV-90-3287] *1, [ED Dist *1 NY LEXIS 1994 WL force]). [complaint of use of excessive penalty imposed plaintiff intended to censor in violation Asserting First his federal civil had Amendment. that sought impaired, plaintiff expungement been of the misbehavior charge, punitive damages attorneys’ fees under USC § 1983.3

Plaintiff’s second filed Pat lawsuit was defendant hearing Smith, officer, DOCS two correction officers two superior According plaintiff, of their officers. he had been grabbed justification by from behind without one of the correc injury pinkie tion officers and sustained a “minor to his left fin ger.” He claimed that in the correction officer involved conspired superiors incident had with his to fabricate the facts report. set forth in his June 2003 misbehavior Plaintiff further alleged urinalysis that in test conducted June 2003 had by tampered employees. complaint, rely been with DOCS The ing conspiring on USC accused defendants of plaintiffs rights by assaulting violate federal civil him without creating report, tampering cause, a false misbehavior with his urinalysis denying impartial hearing.3 test and him a fair and represented by actions, defendants both the Office of Attorney pursuant General to Public Officers Law complaints ground plaintiffs moved to dismiss the on the by claims—both state and federal—were barred provides, pertinent part: 24. This statute any “1. No civil action shall court of except by attorney general state, on behalf against any employee state, of the officer or department personal [of services], correctional in his capacity, damages arising any out of act done or perform any the failure to act within the employment discharge and in the of the duties by employee. such officer or Any damages arising any

“2. claim for out of act provides 3. This federal statute who, statute, ordinance, “[e]very person any under color of custom,

regulation, usage, any Territory or State or Columbia, subjects, subjected, any citi- District of or causes to be person zen of the United States or other within rights, privileges, deprivation any thereof to the or immunities laws, party secured the Constitution and shall be liable injured law, equity, proper proceed- in an suit in or other action ing for redress . . . .” on an al- complaint 4. The also asserted a second cause of action based rights. leged plaintiffs violation of state constitutional any the failure to act within perform done or of the discharge and in the employment of the or any employee department duties of officer in and maintained the court of brought shall be the state.” against claims as a claim statutory dismissed both on this complaints Court Supreme (23 v State New York Woodward basis, [3d AD3d 852 citing [2006]). Iv dismissed 2005], The Appellate NY3d Dept affirmed, that section did not violate concluding Division Plaintiff of the United States Constitution. Clause Supremacy affirm. right as of and we now appeals

II enacted 42 USC Plaintiff contends that when persons that was intended to allow policy it a national imposed seek under color of law to injured by acting who are others section 1983 ac- by prohibiting redress. He claims that judicial Law 24 money damages, impermissibly tions for Correction contrary the federal cause of action discriminates that Clause.5 Defendants submit purpose violation because the states are free to there is no constitutional They of their courts. limit matter and federal monetary maintain that section 24 treats all state a correc- since none can be identically and, therefore, section 24 does not dis- tion officer personally of a state federal cause of action favor criminate cause of action. Clause declares

“Constitution, the United States and the Laws of thereof; and all shall be made Pursuance made, made, which shall be Treaties States, supreme shall be of the United Authority Land; State shall Judges every Law of the in the Constitution or thereby, Thing be bound any notwithstand- Contrary Laws of State to any (US [2]). Const art VI ing” law, the Su- between federal and state

In the of a conflict event of state law because when premacy preempts operation “ all the ‘for all the people an act it Congress adopts speaks all. That is policy States, thereby policy established] claim, merely indemnifies correc- the statute 5. Plaintiff’s alternative unpreserved. officers, is therefore not raised in Court and tion

487 [the State] policy had emanated as if the act much the accordingly respected legislature, in should be from its own the courts ” (Howlett 356, 371 Rose, 496 US v of the State’ quoting York, Co., H.R. 223 US N.H. & v New [1990], 1, Mondou [1947]). e.g. 386, 393 Katt, v 330 US [1912]; see Testa 57 importance “[t]he Supremacy relative Clause, Thus, under is a material when there law is not the State of its own to (Felder Casey, 131, US v 487 federal law” conflict with a valid omitted]). quotation [1988] [internal marks alleged case and state law this federal The conflict between although 42 USC based on that, a claim from the fact arises government monetary damages against § officials 1983 for generally capacity personal in a New York be asserted can their (see Michigan Dept. generally Police, 491 v court Will [1989]), 24 restricts a state 58, US exercising jurisdiction if it a cause of action over such ap glance, prohibition employees. At first this involves DOCS pears questionable Supremacy since the under Clause by “[c]onduct Court has cautioned United States persons acting wrongful state law which is under color of by state law” and . . . cannot be immunized U.S.C. 1983 permitted a federal statute which that a “construction of the controlling immunity effect would to have defense (Mar illusory promise” guarantee a into an transmute basic quota [1980] [internal 277, n 8 v 444 US California, tinez omitted]). tion marks imposes Supremacy

Upon scrutiny, however, Clause closer impediment operation of Correction no constitutional deny gives power to Clause states Law 24. The ” “ they right if ‘valid excuse’ have enforcement of federal (Howlett, Douglas quoting doing v New 369, so 496 US [1929]). permis- One Co., US N. H. & H. R. jurisdiction exception due to a lacks is a state court sible when regarding of the courts” the administration “neutral rule 372). explained (Howlett, Supreme Court has 496 US at great the structure latitude to establish that states “have must and that their own courts” (id. quota- [internal “take[ ] as it finds them” the state courts 178, 189 Gerdes, omitted]; see also Brown tion marks [“(t)he concurring] does Constitution Frankfurter, J., [1944, give jurisdiction its require its courts York to New Council, Tax Inc. v Oklahoma Truck will”]; National Private [1995]). n 4 582, 587 Comm’n, 515 US corollary principle

A to this is that a state rule will be deemed “neutral” and “valid” if it does not discriminate (see analogous claims in favor of state claims McKnett v St. [1934]). Co., Louis & San Francisco R. 233-234 “arising words, claim, other if the same law, under state gen- would be courts, enforced the state the state courts are (Mar- erally not free to refuse enforcement of the federal claim” 7). Ultimately, tinez 444 US at n California, 283-284 what the prohibits is refusal a state court entertain a suit for the sole reason that the cause of action citing Howlett, arises under federal 496 US at Ry. McKnett, 233-234; Co., 292 US at Murnan v Wabash 246 NY [1927]). 244, 247 policy underlying Supremacy Thus, the Clause is to equilibrium maintain an between state and federal causes of ac- opens if tion: a state court action, its doors to a state it cause must also related heard; allow federal claims to be if the but particular state claim, does not hear a it also decline to consider related federal causes of action in its state courts (see generally Mayfield, Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v 340 [1950]). permits litigant 1, result, 4 if US sert a state As a a state to as- sovereign immunity action,

cause of it cannot use a premised defense to defeat a section 1983 action on the same of- (see 379-381). fending Howlett, conduct 496 US at But if a state jurisdiction litigate does not extend to its courts to a certain may deprive jurisdiction claim, it those courts of over a Supremacy situation, related federal In that claim. there is no Clause violation because there is no discrimination (see e.g. federal claim in McKnett, favor similar state claims 233-234). 292 US at And it if follows that of a litigant claim, state court does not embrace a certain cannot by raising evade that rule the same state claim in federal court (see pendent jurisdiction Cough- under the doctrine of Baker v 1996]). [2d equality requirement lin, 12, 77 F3d 15 Cir Supremacy Clause is satisfied in each of these situations litigants footing—regardless because stand on the same they authority whether choose to invoke the of a federal engage repudiated court—and there practice is no incentive to shopping “frequently predictably of forum and rights litigation produce[s] different outcomes federal civil solely litigation place based on whether that takes in state or (Felder 141). Casey, federal court” 487 US at Applying precepts, say these we cannot that Correction Law by emphasiz- 24 statute, violates the Clause. The any brought “[n]o ing action shall be civil jurisdictional all claims— state,” creates a barrier to neutral monetary damages in a state court and federal—for capacity any personal his or her for actions correction officer in employment. 24, therefore, does Section within “ ‘solely because section 1983 actions discriminate ” (Howlett, 496 US at suit is under a federal law’ Ry. quoting McKnett, 233-234; US at see Murnan v Wabash 247)—it equal applies force all state and Co., 246 NY with identity of the defendant6 and federal claims based on alleged York, 23 conduct at issue Woodward v State Newof Dept Coughlin, [3d Cepeda 854; AD2d AD3d at 1987], [1987]; Iv Meehan v Illinois Power denied 70 NY2d 602 cf. 2004] App [App 761, 767, 555, 562 Ct Co., Ill 3d NE2d regarding permit [no violation refusal “(a) age based on discrimination statute because claims federal involving age discrimination, cases whether based on courts”], Iv law, or state are barred from Illinois circuit [2004]). simply, 211 Ill 2d Put because denied 823 NE2d 967 differ Correction Law 24 does not treat section ently it Su action, than treats related state law causes of premacy Clause is not offended.7 directly plaintiff

Nor does the fact that a can sue the state Ordinarily, analysis. our a state can the Court of Claims alter § not be sued 42 USC because states are not 1983 purview “persons” considered to be within the of the federal 65). (see Michigan Dept. Police, Will v 491 US statute State of liability, Although the states excluded 1983 are from section Legislature recognized has of New New York party a chal is, effect, real in interest when there is York lenge alleged arising to a officer’s conduct correction repre- discharge provides result, As a the state of official duties. regard identity of such operates plaintiff, 24 6. Section without rights superior civil seeks to sue his officers for as when correction officer (see 853). New AD3d at Woodward v State 23 violations Felder, by plaintiff dis- 7. Cases such as Howlett and upon and the relied Howlett, sent, distinguishable example, the state from this case. In apply to not immunity 1983 action that did provided an defense been if the action that would not have available related state claims and (see 364). Similarly, in US at been commenced in federal had claims Felder, requirement on section 1983 imposed state law a notice of claim (see 487 had initiated in federal court apply not if the action been that would US at 141). equilibrium cases, upset laws In both the state designed and were therefore unconstitutional. to maintain Clause was sentation and indemnification for correction officers sued for (see occurring employment conduct within the Public [3]). (2) § [2], Officers Law 17 Section 24 further reflects this assumption responsibility by allowing recovery for the damages against certain the Court of Claims.8 Cor- rection Law therefore creates an exclusive forum for plaintiffs seeking against redress of claims the state—the Court Claims—despite the absence of in state courts to rights against employ- entertain claims of civil violations those directly. By restricting ees the forum for a certain of claim particular Legislature nothing to a court, did more prerogative ju- than exercise its to establish the matter risdiction of state courts in a manner consistent with New sovereign immunity, York’s conditional waiver of which does not rights proceed against allow civil claims to the state in Court.

In view, our New York does not discriminate by allowing involving state, but federal, actions employees adjudicated DOCS to be in the Court of Claims since exempt responsible it was that decided to the states as parties purview from the of the federal Furthermore, statute. acknowledges federal law that states can be sued individuals only sovereign immunity in state courts unless is waived or (see abrogated US Const 11; Amend Seminole Tribe Fla. v [1996]). litigants plaintiff Florida, Moreover, like pursue can use the federal courts to section 1983 claims individual defendants and all seek and remedies although available act, under the federal a section claim brought against a correction officer in federal court cannot raise analogous, jurisdictionally barred state law claims Baker v 15). Coughlin, ap- Thus, 77 F3d at when Correction Law plies, necessarily adjudicate only New York courts state claims brought against adjudicate only the state and federal courts brought against federal causes of action end, individuals. New York does not discriminate section 1983 actions in analogous favor of state law claims because subject jurisdiction any removes matter over cause of action— money damages Supreme state or federal—for in state Court for by employees. Consequently, conduct DOCS section 24 does not Supremacy violate the Clause. sovereign immunity 8. New York’s waiver of is conditioned on submission jurisdiction Const, VI, 9; the §

to exclusive of the Court of Claims NY art 8).§ Court of Claims Act Accordingly, Appellate af- Division should be orders of the the firmed, without costs. (dissenting). question Court is The before this Jones, J. § Law 24 violates the Correction

whether bringing litigants 42 USC 1983 claims as it from insofar bars money employees damages for DOCS state court for scope employment. As of their committed within the actions by majority, purpose interpreted of, the the section frustrates Specifically, with, 1983. section and is inconsistent (1) by litigation preventing section 1983 actions burdens the of adjudicating money damages—even claims for courts from jurisdiction parties and the such courts have over the where type allowing brought—while, time, the the of claim same involving adjudicate the conduct to actions same court (2) group by employees; DOCS immunizes a select of state employees damages claims where other state section 1983 majority employees similarly the are not immunized. argue, however, courts decline exercise State that state can to damages money their concurrent section 1983 over employees DOCS claims because (i.e., of affords New excuse” a neutral rule York “valid judicial jurisdiction) limiting administration matter doing Contrary majority’s conclusion, 24 can- so. challenge not ingly, Clause. Accord- withstand a Appellate I dissent and would the orders of the reverse plaintiffs Division, remand both actions reinstate proceedings. further Court for

I. (entitled [DOCS] Correction “Civil actions Law personnel”) states: any

“1. No civil action shall be by attorney except general on state, behalf employee against any state, officer capacity, damages department, personal his perform arising any act done or out of failure any scope employment and in act within discharge or em- such the duties officer ployee. any damages arising Any [such] out of “2. claim for any perform act within act done or the failure to discharge employment and in the any employee depart- the duties of ment shall be officer or of the and maintained in the court (emphasis of claims added). claim as a the state” purpose have We stated that of 24 is to section ensure employees, acting employment, DOCS when within the of freely perform dangerous maintaining safety their duties of security subjected being within correctional without facilities fear of many voluminous, and, vexatious cases, merit- brought by prisoners being personally less suits held liable (see prisoner prevail Arteaga should a v State New of [1988]). 212, NY2d majority opinion provides description The a detailed of (see plaintiffs present major- previous claims, and several ones op 484-485), ity apparently suggest the claims are recognize they problem frivolous, which well be. I that the by prisoners against of baseless lawsuits is a corrections officers Congress, one; however, serious enacted 1983 to deal problem—i.e., an with even more serious violations of citizens’ rights by acting those under the color of state law. of

Section is the current version section 1 of Civil Rights post-Civil 1871, Act of one of the War Reconstruction- Congress Era civil statutes enacted.1 Section 1983 states: ment ness insofar York 1st 1. The Sess, City Dept. 1983]). the southern at 236 Monroe v it held that purpose As the [1871]) Social of the Pape, states local and to enforce the Civil 365 US Servs., governments after the Rights Court stated: Civil War Act of 1871 was to provisions [1961], wholly ^[1978] (see overruled of the Fourteenth Amend immune Cong Globe, [Monroe address the from suit was overruled Monell 42nd lawless v New Cong, grew message Congress by “The [Act] out sent to President reading: Grant on March “ ‘A condition of now affairs exists in some States of the Union rendering property carrying life and insecure and the mails and the dangerous. proof collection of the revenue that such a condition of exists in affairs some localities is now before the power beyond Senate. That to correct these evils is doubt; power control of I State authorities do not that the of the States, acting Executive of the United the limits of exist- within laws, ing emergencies present is sufficient is not clear. Therefore, urgently legislation judg- I recommend such as in the effectually life, liberty, prop- ment of shall secure erty, parts and the enforcement of law in all United States. . . legislation, 20, 1871, April “[The enacted on had three main aims.] any “Every person statute, under color of who, usage, any regulation, custom, or ordinance, or subjects, Territoiy or Columbia, District subjected, any the United to be citizen causes person or other within the States thereof any rights, privileges, deprivation im- or to munities secured be liable to the of

by laws, shall the Constitution injured party law, in an action proceeding equity, proper suit in or other added). (emphasis redress” deprived permits of his her Thus, an individual or rights by person(s) acting under of law color federal civil officials) (i.e., government bring to a civil suit the state actor(s), personal capacity, compensatory relief. in their Supreme Court 1983 was Moreover, the stated meant to create liability persons deprived species in of

“a of favor of rights by wielding those their federal civil authority. objective ‘[T]he

. . . central of rights is to Reconstruction-Era civil statutes ... whose federal constitutional ensure or ages individuals statutory abridged dam- recover injunctive [section] Thus,

or secure relief.’ remedy provides uniquely incur- ‘a federal upon rights by . the Constitution sions . . secured Nation,’ is to be ‘a and laws of the accorded ’ sweep language. as broad as its applicability “Any to a assessment of rights litigation, therefore, civil must federal light purpose in and nature made right. question is so This whether “First, . might. . of state laws. . . it . override certain kinds “Second, provided remedy it state law was inade- a where quate. . . . remedy the state provide aim a federal where “The third was to prac- not remedy, though adequate theory, available . . tice. . condi- to the lawless replete debates are with references “The It the unavail- existing in ... was not the South 1871.

tions of certain States to ability state remedies but the failure powerful equal furnished the hand that enforce the laws with an ‘force . . . momentum behind this bill.’ representing remedy . those who . . “[T]he created was to enforce a capacity unwilling in some were unable State omitted]). (Monroe, [footnotes US at 172-176 state law” applicability litiga- [section] state-law arises in possess courts, tion in state concur- actions, rent over such inor federal- (Felder litigation” Casey, ^[1988] [emphasis added and citations omitted]). line, Bottom decided that threat abuse of acting enough citizens those under color of state real law was justify creating though to the section 1983 cause of action—even many Accordingly, section 1983 cases lack merit. State of employees is not New York free to decide that DOCS must be any event, In immune such suits. here is issue plaintiff right bring clearly whether these has claims—he courts, courts, does—but whether state as well as federal must adjudicating my bear the burden of view, them. state courts selectively escape responsibility. However, cannot this over the years, Steinglass, New York courts have Steven H. an Litigation, Introduction State Court Section 1983 in Sword Approach Litigation, Shield, and A Practical to Section 1983 “(t)he [stating [ABA 2006] flagrant example 3d ed that most (section) system selectively excluding of a state court 1983 cases (section) is the refusal of the New York courts to entertain officials”]). actions state correctional Although generally the State of New York has the freedom to subject jurisdiction fix matter follow, the rules its courts must authority it not does have the to enact a statute that violates or example, is inconsistent with federal law—for a statute im- munizing liability injuries compensable “an official (Howlett under federal Rose, [1990], law” cit- [1980])—and ing simply Martinez California, re- jurisdiction fer to the statute as a neutral rule of matter Supremacy purposes. that as a serves valid excuse for Clause enacting Legislature 24, however, the State put immunizing has forth a official statute conduct otherwise is, therefore, actionable under federal law. Section inconsis- Supremacy tent with section 1983 and Clause. violative of II. (US [2]), Const

Under Clause art VI federal supreme Supreme law is “the explained: Law of the Land.” The Court “[flederal law is enforceable in state courts not Congress has courts because determined federal or that state courts burdened would otherwise be forum—although might provide a more convenient might the Constitu- true—but because both well be passed pursuant it much are as tion laws and passed by the state as laws in the States laws legislature. makes those laws charges supreme Land, and Law responsibility to enforce a courts with coordinate pro- regular according to their modes law the United States are laws cedure. The laws of just binding States, and as much on the several as the State and courts thereof laws citizens system ju- together one are. . The form . . two risprudence, constitutes the land jurisdic- State; the courts of two foreign other, not to each nor tions are such, each other as but courts treated country, having jurisdiction partly different same (Howlett, partly US at 367 concurrent” omitted]). quotation [citations and internal marks jurisdiction courts, therefore, have concurrent Federal and state duty to enforce over federal actions and courts have except federal law to the same extent as courts where Discuss- to the exercise of such exists. valid excuse ing exception, Court articulated this “valid excuse” three corollaries: deny right,

“1. A a federal when controversy properly parties it, before . . . The existence of the absence of valid excuse. duty jurisdiction implication to creates an . it. . . exercise with or violates

“2. An excuse that is inconsistent is .... federal law not a valid excuse jurisdiction because “3. a court refuses When state regarding the of a state rule administration neutral caution courts, must act with utmost we deciding obligated is to entertain the that it before requirement a court . state claim. . . The jurisdiction competent as the law federal law treat necessarily within it a include of the land does not competent requirement a State create that the pre- [a] is federal claim to case in which the hear general sented. rule ... is that federal law takes as it courts finds them. . . . The great States thus have latitude to establish the jurisdiction structure and of their own courts. . . . may apply addition, States their own neutral procedural rules claims, to federal those rules unless (id. [preempted] by [cita- are law” federal at 369-372 omitted]). quotation tions and internal marks Accordingly, legislation limiting subject a state enact its purview matter over claims its otherwise within long legislation supported by as the is a If valid excuse. a state applies judicial a rule of administration, neutral the state has a refusing provide competent juris- valid excuse a court of diction to hear such For the below, claims. reasons set forth Correction Law 24 is not a valid excuse. Supreme

First, has not Court deemed the “jurisdictional” rule at bar—the effect of is that Section damages group employees one of state are employees barred while identical claims other state only allowed—to be valid There excuse. have been three cases Supreme in which the has Court held that a excuse valid exists for a state court’s refusal entertain a federal claim. These judicial cases neutral involved rules of administration—all markedly different from section 24—where the state court (1) dismissed the federal claim: on forum non conveniens (2) grounds;2 parties because the were nonresidents of the forum (3) state;3 or because the federal claim arose outside of the 374-375). jurisdiction4 Howlett, state’s territorial US determining acceptable Moreover, what would an valid “[t]he excuse, the Court cautioned that fact that a jurisdictional provide rule is denominated does not a court an obligation excuse to avoid the to enforce law if federal the rule power person does not reflect the concerns of over the and com- petence jurisdictional over the matter that rules are (1950) 2. ex Mayfield, See Missouri rel. Southern R. Co. v (holding apply court could the forum non conveniens doctrine to bar adjudication Employer’s action Liability Act [FELA] Federal if the policy impartially its “enforce[d] so as not to involve discrimination omitted]). [citation suits” [FELA] (1929) Douglas Co., 3. v New (holding See N. H. & H. R. properly permitted discretionary that state statute dismissal of both state). party and state where neither was a forum resident of the (1945). Pitcairn, 4. See Herb v (id. 381). below, made clear at As will be designed to protect” neither. does 24 does not discrimi- the view that section Second, majority’s view, in based, my claims is damages section 1983 nate Court Supreme an of United States unduly reading on narrow Martinez, held that a Califor- Supreme In the Court precedent. control- conduct was not immunizing nia statute government where such took litigation in even ling litigation, im- of the State’s court, in because application state place of section 1983 purpose would thwart the remedial munity law 284). (444 In so the Court observed that “where holding, US at law, would be claim, if arising the same are not courts, generally in the state state courts enforced (id. 7). of the federal claim” at 283 n free refuse enforcement statute, At in a Wisconsin notice-of-claim issue Felder was of limitations for those effectively shortened statute claims. The Court seeking Supreme to assert federal civil held that the Wisconsin statute extent preempted it the statute to section 1983 claims because applied the remedial objec- conflicted both with purpose effect its to a section 1983 claim application tives than if it yield in state court could a different outcome brought (487 152). Although US in federal court at were did not to limit the purport the statute Felder it courts, had, if would have reached Wisconsin Court “(t)he Howlett, 382-383 [stating same result at it of the Clause is not so weak that can force ”]). ‘jurisdiction’ evaded mere mention of word Howlett, considered whether Moreover, Court immunity waived sovereign a Florida statute in which claims— tort actions—but not from section 1983 from state limitation on the jurisdictional state defendants was The Court held that the stat- of the Florida state courts. power because the state courts ute violated the im- sovereign state claims not entertained similar could not be such, as section 1983 claims munity defense; 375). (see Howlett, the Court Significantly, 496 US at precluded ac- hear section 1983 its courts to opens noted that once a 1983 actions it exclude certain section tions, selectively (id. 381). policies jurisdictional by denominating nondiscrimination majority’s light foregoing, I ac- unavailing. arguments and “equality requirement” knowledge require that cannot York New State to cre- competent jurisdiction ate court of to entertain Here, however, claims. one such court exists. New York State supreme general (i.e., “original, courts are courts of unlimited (NY § unqualified”) Kagen VI, and Const, 7; art [1968]) Kagen, already NY2d that hear and adjudicate damages state law claims for and all section 1983 claims—including injunctive declaratory claims for and relief money damages sought—against and claims where state em- DOCS). ployees (except by employed those Since the same state law claim—and federal law claim for that en- matter—is supreme selectively court, forceable in state re- State cannot fuse to enforce federal claim. by majority, Legislature

Further, as noted the State employees, determined the State, and not be DOCS should wrongful liable for the conduct committed within the [2]). employment policy judgment Correction Law This logically purpose flows from the above-mentioned of section 24. impor- “[t]he However, Clause, relative tance to the its own law is not when is a material there any law, conflict with a valid law, for state however clearly acknowledged power, within a State’s which interferes contrary (Felder, yield” law, with or is to federal must omitted]). [internal quotation at Thus, marks neither the policy judgment purpose underlying judg- State’s nor the such qualifies judicial ment a as neutral rule of administration. resolving goals objec- Third, bar, in the issue the broad and (the progenitor tives of section and matter its 1871), Rights Specifi- Civil Act of must taken into account. cally, this Court should determine whether application [state statute]

“the of to 1983 ac- [is] tions in state courts consistent with the goals [whether] laws, of the federal civil statute] [the the enforcement of state instead stand[s] accomplishment an obstacle to the objectives purposes execution Congress” the full (id. omitted]). quotation [internal marks plain Here, its terms im- employees liability munizes ac- DOCS from for certain conduct with section 1983’s 1983,5 inconsistent 6is tionable under respects. important purposes For those remedial several litigants bring court, sec 1983 claims their section who (1) litigants by barring section 1983 24: interferes with tion directly receiving compensatory from individual relief (2) actor(s) conduct; and the actionable committed who seeking litigants places significant to secure obstacles front of recovery.6 a full immunity sovereign

Additionally, its extend liability legislation immunizing pass “an official from (Howlett, injuries compensable 496 US at law” under federal Martinez). citing Comparing and the statutes in Howlett 360, sought cloak states to the case at makes clear that both bar simply, sovereign immunity. Put officials in their their own “the Howlett, board state” under the statute school damages Here, the em- immune. suits based on and therefore only ployees’ “as a claim actions can be (Correction [2]).7 result, cases, is in both state” Law remedy plaintiff’s only a is suit state-court pursuant of the State, which, to the Eleventh Amendment purposes, a is not Federal Constitution and section “person” Therefore, can be under section 1983.8 held liable remedy plaintiffs those left with no in state court be liable under section 1983. Given individuals who would goals objectives 1983, could not have and of section envisioned such a result. (2d 1996) “by (holding that its Coughlin, 5. 77 F3d Cir See Baker officers terms, governs of corrections plain [section] 24 the substantive fall immunity liability for activities that

by conferring upon from them an statute”). within litigant bring for declara- section 1983 actions 6. a can Under section However, litigant is a if the to have tory injunctive relief in state court. and money 1983, he she must seek contemplated by recovery, section full recovery, litigant split Thus, a has to obtain a full damages in court. federal This separate jurisdictions. in two bring separate actions claims and two (See New litigants. Woodward State on also places an onerous burden 2005, Kane, J., dissenting].) Dept [3d 23 AD3d section and limited the By requirement, 24 has redefined 7. section this right a DOCS i.e., plaintiffs to sue action, it eliminates 1983 cause of damages in capacity, state court. employee, personal in his or her v. in Will (stating we held last Term Howlett, “[a]s See 496 US at 365 8. [1989], entity Eleventh an with Police, 491 S. 58 Dept. U. Michigan meaning [section] immunity ‘person’ within the not a is Amendment 1983”). III. I conclusion, stress two which make clear points why Division order should

Appellate First, you be reversed. if strip away the veneer of the majority’s arguments, section 24—a which, face, statute on its anyone, precludes including other DOCS employees prisoners, damages bringing claims a neutral jurisdictional barrier against DOCS not personnel—is particular of claim. In type reality, section 24 functions as immunity an statute that allows state courts to selectively exclude prisoner suits for damages against DOCS personnel. Second, contrary majority’s view, section 24 simply does fall under the category of what could a “valid excuse” (i.e., does not reflect the concerns of power over matter). litigants competence over subject Here, court has supreme over the parties and, based on the State’s willingness to allow the adjudication of all 1983 claims against other employees, competence over Further, claim at bar. arose within plaintiffs State’s jurisdiction. territorial foregoing, Based on the Correc- tion Law does not afford a valid excuse to selectively exclude section damages suits against DOCS personnel is, therefore, infirm constitutionally the Supremacy Clause. Kaye Ciparick

Chief Judge Judges concur with Read Judge Graffeo; Jones dissents Judge and votes reverse in a Pigott separate opinion Judges Smith concur. affirmed, Orders without costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Haywood v. Drown

Court Name: New York Court of Appeals

Date Published: Nov 27, 2007

Citation: 881 N.E.2d 180

Docket Number: Action 1; Action 2

Court Abbreviation: NY