Jaeger v. Dubuque CountyJaeger v. Dubuque County
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bennett
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.2
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.
A. Improper Captions.
B. Irrelevant And Impertinent Defenses.
1. Qualified immunity.
2. “Good faith” as an element of qualified immunity.
3. The “objective reasonableness” test for qualified immunity
L Qualified immunity of DNR officers.
5. State statutory immunity for municipalities.
a. The scope of the statutory immunity. tH
b. State-law immunities to federal claims. t — (
c. The extent of municipal liability under § 1983 . r — i
III. CONCLUSION 18
In this lawsuit brought pursuant to
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Raymond Jaeger filed the original complaint in this matter on November 25, 1994. He filed an amended complaint on December 21,1994. The amended complaint asserts that defendants, including Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and state law enforcement officials, violated his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by conducting an unreasonable search and seizure of his property without any warrant or exigent circumstances in violation of clearly established law. Jaeger seeks compensatory and consequential damages of $500,000.00 and punitive damages of $1,500,000.00, plus costs and attorney fees.
This matter comes before the court pursuant to Jaeger’s January 24, 1995, motion to strike affirmative defenses of defendants Buss, McCaw, Dubuque County, Avenarius, Runde, and Vrotsos (collectively, the Du-buque County defendants) (docket number 35), which was resisted by the named defendants on January 26, 1995. This matter also comes before the court pursuant to Jaeger’s January 30,1995, motion to strike affirmative defenses of defendants Sanfilippo and Azel-tine (the DNR defendants) (docket number 37), which was resisted by the named defendants on February 6, 1995. The court concludes that both motions must be denied.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Improper Captions
In both of his motions, Jaeger contends that defendants violated
The court finds Jaeger’s arguments concerning capitalization otherwise specious. The court routinely capitalizes the names of all parties before this court in all matters, civil and criminal, without any regard to their corporate or individual status, and has never considered that
FeáR.Civ.P.
10(a) prevented different fonts, type faces, types of ink, types of printers, methods of printing or handwrit
B. Irrelevant And Impertinent Defenses
Jaeger also asserts that defendants have violated
1. Qualified immunity
The affirmative defenses of qualified immunity are plainly relevant in these proceedings, because each of the defendants is a government official or municipality and the actions complained of are actions taken in the course of the individual defendants’ official duties. The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Bills v. Dahm, 32 F.3d 333, 334 (8th Cir.1994); Givens v. Jones, 900 F.2d 1229, 1231-32 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting Harlow). “[T]o be clearly established, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Bills, 32 F.3d at 335; Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1048 (8th Cir.1989); See also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640-41, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). The shield of qualified immunity is breached if “the unlawfulness of the action [is] apparent in light of pre-existing law.” Bills, 32 F.3d at 334-35. However, the Supreme Court has made clear that a plaintiff cannot defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity “ ‘simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.’” Bills, 32 F.3d at 335 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639, 107 S.Ct. at 3038); Givens, 900 F.2d at 1232 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639, 107 S.Ct. at 3038).
Ordinarily, the court must make a three-part inquiry to determine whether the
2. “Good faith” as an element of qualified immunity
Although the Supreme Court in Harlow called the defense “[qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815, 102 S.Ct. at 2736, as have other courts since, see, e.g., Reeve v. Oliver, 41 F.3d 381, 382 n. 1 (8th Cir.1994) (Harlow referred to the defense as “qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity”), the court and the parties must not mistake nomenclature for a description of the current test for or elements of the defense. In Harlow, the Supreme Court made it clear that subjective “good faith” is no longer an element of the defense. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 816-18, 102 S.Ct. at 2737-38. The Court’s deletion of the subjective element of good faith rested on the pragmatic judgment that it “frequently has proved incompatible with our admonition in Butz [v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978),] that insubstantial claims should not proceed to trial.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815-16, 102 S.Ct. at 2736-37.
The position of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on this matter was made equally clear in Slone, in which the court rejected “attempts to instill a good faith element into the qualified immunity defense.” Slone, 983 F.2d at 110. The court held that “ ‘[a] defendant’s good faith or bad faith is irrelevant to the qualified immunity inquiry [because] [t]he standard is one of “objective reasonableness.” ’ ” Slone, 983 F.2d at 110 (quoting Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 494 (8th Cir. 1991), in turn quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 344, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1097, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)). This court has adhered to Slone’s pronouncement as controlling precedent in a recent decision. See Kurtz v. Denniston, 872 F.Supp. 631, 638 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (“good faith” is not an element of the qualified immunity defense).
Thus, to the extent that the defendants have pleaded an immunity defense based on the subjective “good faith” of their conduct, that defense should be stricken in light of Slone. However, to the extent that the defendants have pleaded defenses based on objective reasonableness of their conduct, however named, those defenses are certainly relevant here. The court finds that the defenses as pleaded by these defendants are amenable to either reading. Thus, the court construes the Dubuque County defendants’ references to “good faith” immunity in then-first and third affirmative defenses to be inartful pleadings of what is now properly called “qualified immunity.” The court concludes that it cannot strike any affirmative defense here pleaded; however, the court assures the parties that it will measure those defenses in light of the proper objective reasonableness test without regard to any subjective good faith of the actors.
3. The “objective reasonableness” test for qualified immunity
The test courts must apply to a defense of qualified immunity has been clarified by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals:
[the test of qualified immunity] is not whether the conduct is clearly constitutional, but whether it is clearly unconstitutional. [Plaintiff’s] proposed test would focus on whether courts have specifically sanctioned particular conduct, whereas the correct inquiry is whether courts have found the conduct unconstitutional or have defined a constitutional right in such a way that “ ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 293 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039). “This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law, the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 (citations omitted) .... Application of this test “does not require a prior case that is ‘precisely on all fours on the facts and law.’ ” McDonald, 966 F.2d at 293_ Rather, we are concerned with whether the law was clear “in relation to the specific facts confronting the public official[s] when [they] acted.” Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968, 109 S.Ct. 497, 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); see also McDonald, 966 F.2d at 294.
Knox v. McGinnis, 998 F.2d 1405, 1409-10 (7th Cir.1993) (some internal citations omitted). Thus, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 638, 107 S.Ct. at 3038. The immunity defense should fail if the official violates a clearly established right, because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Slone, 983 F.2d at 109 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819, 102 S.Ct. at 2738). Therefore, qualified immunity extends to “a prison official who relies on a facially valid regulation unless he knows or should know that the regulation violates a well established constitutional right consisting of the particular act” he punishes or prohibits. Wolfel v. Morris, 972 F.2d 712, 719-20 (6th Cir.1992); Cf. Cross, 965 F.2d at 632 (official’s conduct is protected if reasonable in light of the law and information official possessed at the time.). Whether defendants can meet this standard remains to be seen. However, the qualified immunity defenses defendants have raised are plainly relevant to these proceedings and shall not be stricken on that ground.
4. Qualified immunity of DNR officers
Jaeger also asserts that the DNR defendants cannot raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, because they are not law enforcement officers. It is plain, however, that qualified immunity protection is not limited just to law enforcement officers. Rather, the doctrine shields “government officials performing discretionary functions.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. The DNR defendants are such officials. This court does not believe that any prior decision is required stating specifically that DNR officials are entitled to qualified immunity, 4 when government officials generally are entitled to raise the defense to shield them from civil liability for conduct in the performance of discretionary functions. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. “The DNR defendants are entitled to prove that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.
5. State statutory immunity for municipalities
Finally, Jaeger asserts that the Dubuque County defendants cannot raise an immunity defense based on any “code” and further asserts that they have not properly identified the “code” to which they refer. It is apparent to the court that the “code” in question is the Code of the State of Iowa, and the provisions in question are found in Iowa Code Ch. 670 (1993). Had the Dubuque County defendants submitted the statutory immunity defense as pleaded here in an Iowa state court, this court doubts that any party would have been confused. Although the Dubuque County defendants could be criticized for not showing proper regard for the fact that their
а. The scope of the statutory immunity
First, on its face, Iowa Code Ch. 670 provides only for the liability, and then for the immunity from that liability, of municipalities, not individual governmental officials. 6 Thus, even if Iowa Code Ch. 670 provides an applicable immunity, that immunity would only shield the County of Du-buque, and not any of the other so-called Dubuque County defendants. To the extent the answers of the Dubuque County defendants attempt to assert an affirmative defense for individual defendants founded on Iowa Code Ch. 670, that affirmative defense is stricken.
b. State-law immunities to federal claims
Next, the court must consider whether a state statutory immunity for a municipality is applicable to
a federal
lawsuit based on violation of
federal
rights. At the outset, the court notes that it has found no decision in either the federal courts or Iowa state courts in which the immunities in
The court also finds that federal courts have rejected state-law immunities as providing any bar to
[i]f the [Florida] District Court of Appeal meant to hold that governmental entities subject to§ 1983 liability enjoy an immunity over and above those already provided in§ 1983 , that holding directly violates federal law. The elements of, and the defenses to, a federal cause of action are defined by federal law. See Monessen Southwestern R. Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330, 335 [, 108 S.Ct. 1837, 1842, 100 L.Ed.2d 349] (1988); Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Kuhn, 284 U.S. 44, 46-47 [, 52 S.Ct. 45, 45-46, 76 L.Ed. 157] (1931). A State may not, by statute or common law, create a cause of action under§ 1983 against an entity whom Congress has not subjected to liability. Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 698-710 [, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1789-1796, 36 L.Ed.2d 596] (1973). Since this Court has construed the word “person” in§ 1983 to exclude States, neither a federal court nor a state court may entertain a§ 1983 action against such a defendant. Conversely, since the Court has held that municipal corporations and similar governmental entities are “persons,” see Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 663 [, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2021, 56 L.Ed.2d 611] (1978); cf. Will [v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. [58,] 69, n. 9 [, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2311, n. 9, 105 L.Ed.2d 45] [ (1989) ]; Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280-81 [, 97 S.Ct. 568, 572-73, 50 L.Ed.2d 471] (1977), a state court entertaining a§ 1983 action must adhere to that interpretation. “Municipal defenses — including an assertion of sovereign immunity — to a federal right of action are, of course, controlled by federal law.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. [622,] 647, n. 30 [, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1413, n. 30, 63 L.Ed.2d 673] [ (1980) ]. “By including municipalities within the class of ‘persons’ subject to liability for violations of the Federal Constitution and laws, Congress — the supreme sovereign on matters of federal law — abolished whatever vestige of the State’s sovereign immunity the municipality possessed.” Id., at 647-648 [, 100 S.Ct. at 1413] (footnote omitted).
Howlett,
496 U.S. at 375-376, 110 S.Ct. at 2442. Thus, in
Howlett,
the Supreme Court rejected Florida’s attempt to extend absolute immunity from suit not only to the state and its arms, but also to municipalities, counties, and school districts that might otherwise be subject to suit under
The decisions of other courts follow
Howlett
and
Owen,
finding state-law immunities inapplicable to
In
Owen,
the Supreme Court had recognized that at common law municipalities had generally had immunity, unless withdrawn by statute, for “governmental” (as opposed to “proprietary”) and “discretionary” functions, but ruled that this history did not justify giving municipalities qualified immunity under
[T]he municipality’s governmental immunity is obviously abrogated by the sovereign’s enactment of a statute making it amenable to suit.Section 1983 was just such a statute.
Id.
This holding of
Owen
is particularly applicable to the situation here.
[t]he liability imposed bysection 670.2 shall have no application to any claim enumerated in this section. As to any such claim, a municipality shall be liable only to the extent liability may be imposed by the express statute dealing with such claims....
Even if
c.
The extent of municipal liability under
The extent of liability of municipalities for claims brought pursuant to
In Collins, the Supreme Court explained the scope of municipal liability as follows:
In Monell [v. New York City Dep’t of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658 [, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611] (1978)], the Court held that Congress intended municipalities and other local governmental entities to be included among those persons to whom§ 1983 applies. 436 U.S., at 690, 98 S.Ct., at 2035. At the same time, the Court made it clear that municipalities may notbe held liable “unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.” Id., at 691, 98 S.Ct., at 2036. The Court emphasized that
“a municipality cannot be held hable solely because it employs a tortfeasor— or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under§ 1983 on a respon-deat superior theory....
“[Tjherefore, ... a local government may not be sued under§ 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under§ 1983 .” Id., at 691, 694, 98 S.Ct., at 2037-2038 (emphasis in original).
Collins,
503 U.S. at 122, 112 S.Ct. at 1066.
See also Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.,
491 U.S. 701, 736, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2723, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989) (no
respondeat superior
liability against a municipality for
Where official policy is lacking, municipal liability may be established “through proof that the alleged misconduct was so pervasive among the non-policy making employees of the municipality ‘as to constitute a “custom or usage” with the force of law.’ ”
McGautha,
36 F.3d at 56 (quoting
Monell); Jiles v. Ingram,
944 F.2d 409, 413 (8th Cir.1991) (“Disparate treatment by a governmental entity may be proved by pattern and practice evidence.”);
Catlett v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n,
828 F.2d 1260, 1265 (8th Cir.1987),
cert. denied,
485 U.S. 1021, 108 S.Ct. 1574, 99 L.Ed.2d 889 (1988). The rationale for this requirement is that it prevents a municipality from escaping liability by improperly delegating policy-making responsibility.
Id.
36 F.2d at 57;
Jiles,
944 F.2d at 413 (wrong-doing does not have to be by named defendants in order for city to be held hable). Although municipal liability for violating federal constitutional rights may arise from a single act of a policy maker,
see Pembaur,
475 U.S. at 481-84, 106 S.Ct. at 1299-1300;
McGautha,
36 F.3d at 56;
Angarita v. St. Louis County,
981 F.2d 1537, 1546 (8th Cir.1992), municipal liability for an unconstitutional custom or usage cannot arise from a single act.
McGautha,
36 F.3d at 56 (citing
Wedemeier v. City of Ballwin,
931 F.2d 24, 26 (8th Cir.1991)). Authority as to specific personnel decisions does not necessarily rise to the level of final policy making authority.
McGautha,
36 F.3d at 56 (citing
City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik,
485 U.S. 112, 128-30, 108 S.Ct. 915, 926-27, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988) (plurality opinion);
Pembaur,
475 U.S. at 481-84, 106 S.Ct. at 1299-1300). Designation of the official or body responsible for the challenged policy is a matter of state law determined by the court.
Id.
(citing
Jett,
491 U.S. at 737, 109 S.Ct. at 2723;
Praprotnik,
485 U.S. at 124, 108 S.Ct. at 925). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held, however, that where a person heads a governmental department, and is responsible for
Thus, even if Iowa Code Ch. 670 provided Dubuque County with some immunity in these proceedings, that immunity and municipal liability despite that immunity would each extend only as far as federal law provides. However, the court concludes that no state law attempting to establish municipal immunity is applicable to this federal lawsuit based on federal claims in which only federal defenses are relevant. Howlett, 496 U.S. at 375-376, 110 S.Ct. at 2442; Owen, 445 U.S. at 647 n. 30, 100 S.Ct. at 1413. n. 30. The affirmative defense of the Dubuque County employees founded on statutory immunity provided by Iowa Code Ch. 670 must be stricken.
III. CONCLUSION
The court concludes that the affirmative defenses found in the answers of the Du-buque County defendants, although somewhat inartful in their references to “good faith,” should be construed as pleading qualified immunity. However, any affirmative defense founded on subjective “good faith” must be stricken, as the appropriate test for qualified immunity of government officials is one of objective reasonableness. Contrary to Jaeger’s assertions, the court concludes that qualified immunity defenses, when those defenses are properly grounded in the objective reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct, are plainly relevant to this action asserting that defendants violated plaintiffs constitutional rights in the course of defendants’ conduct of discretionary functions of their government employment. The court concludes further that the DNR officials, as government officials performing discretionary functions, are entitled to raise a qualified immunity defense. However, the court concludes that the Dubuque County defendants have improperly pleaded a state statutory immunity defense to a federal claim governed by federal law. Thus, the defendants’ affirmative defense founded on Iowa Code Ch. 670 must be stricken. Jaeger’s motions to strike must therefore be granted in part and denied in part as stated above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
.
[e]veiy pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, the file number, and a designation as in Rule 7(a). In the complaint the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties, but in other pleadings it is sufficient to state the name of the first party on each side with an appropriate indication of other parties. N.D.Ia. LR 10, the local court rule pertaining to filings, establishes other specific matters for filings and pleadings, including size, margins, legibility, duplication, page numbering, identification of parties and the court, signatures, and copies, but does not specify the capitalization style for any part of the caption.
.
[u]pon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court‘s own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
Jaeger‘s objections to the filings in this matter were timely raised.
. The affirmative defenses of which Jaeger complains are stated identically in the answer to the amended complaint of Dubuque County, McCaw, Avenarius, Runde, and Vrotsos, and in the separate answer of Paul Buss:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants acted with good faith belief as to probable cause and have a qualified immunity to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants have immunity under Chapter 670, The Code, ■ and Plaintiff’s Complaint, therefore, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times material to the allegations alleged in the Complaint Defendants acted in good faith enforcement of laws and had reasonable grounds upon which to believe they were acting in good faith and therefore are immune from the claims made in Plaintiff‘s Complaint.
The Answer of the DNR defendants to the Amended Complaint states only one affirmative defense of which Jaeger has complaint in the present motions:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These Defendants are entitled to have the Complaint dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Thus, the DNR defendants have not suggested that “good faith” plays any part in their defense of qualified immunity.
. In Gunderson v. Schlueter, 904 F.2d 407, 408-09 (8th Cir. 1990), the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of DNR officials which had been based in part on their qualified immunity defense, but the appellate court did not reach the applicability of that defense to DNR officials, affirming the decision of the district court on its disposition of the substantive claims of constitutional violations including procedural and substantive due process claims.
. The court does wish to call to the defendants’ attention N.D.Ia. LR 10(f), which provides that “All citations in pleadings or other requests for court action shall refer to the United States Code or to the appropriate State Code.”
. Liability is imposed on state subdivisions in
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every municipality is subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers and employees, acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function.
For the purposes of this chapter, employee includes a person who performs services for a municipality whether or not the person is compensated for the services, unless the services are performed only as an incident to the person’s attendance at a municipal function.
A person who performs services for a municipality or an agency or subdivision of a municipality and who does not receive compensation is not personally liable for a claim based upon an act or omission of the person performed in the discharge of the person’s duties, except for acts or omissions which involve intentional misconduct or knowing violation of the law, or for a transaction from which the person derives an improper personal benefit. For purposes of this action, “compensation” does not include payments to reimburse a person for expenses.
Although this section of the Iowa Code appears to extend immunity to persons who perform services for a municipality for which they do not receive compensation, this exclusion from liability is inapplicable to any defendant here, as all are compensated employees of Dubuque County.
The liability imposed in
The liability imposed bysection 670.2 shall have no application to any claim enumerated in this section. As to any such claim, a municipality shall be liable only to the extent liability may be imposed by the express statute dealing with such claims and, in the absence of such express statute, the municipality shall be immune from liability....
3. Any claim based upon an act or omission of an officer or employee of the municipality, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute, ordinance, or regulation whether the statute, ordinance, or regulation is valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of the municipality or an officer or employee of the municipality, whether or not the discretion was abused....
5. Any claim for punitive damages.