Richman, Marcella v. Sheahan, Michael

(Amended hostage.” Travis ... holding Individually RICHMAN, and Marcella ¶ 19)

Complaint, the Estate Special as Administrator holding Holloway en banc recent Our deceased, Richman, Plain B. of Jack every that not clearly indicates v. Brush tiff-Appellee, that has a worker social taken action proceedings is connection court some SHEAHAN, Ca in his Official Michael prosecutorial immu- with absolute cloaked County, et pacity of Cook as Sheriff Cir.2000). At the nity. 220 F.3d Defendants-Appellants. al., 12(b)(6) possible must take it as stage, we show that the ultimate facts will 00-2173. No. knew that workers social defendant Appeals, Court United States constitutionally entitled to were parents Seventh Circuit. adjudicatory hearing, or an absolute holding of such steps impede Dec. Argued took actions such my opinion, In hearing. 16, 2001. Decided Oct. quali- or to absolute not be entitled would in Hollo- holding immunity, under our fied Id. at 773-80.

way. shows, actions much Egervary also

As than those door to the courtroom

closer qualified case have been

our denied immunity. Egervary, rep- claim that (denying at 184

F.Supp.2d agent in an ex by a federal

resentations protected hearing judge are

parte before a immunity). course, that on sum- may it be

Of well trial, facts or on full such

mary judgment, the Rule But at supported.

cannot be

12(b)(6) we are not free to make stage, respect- and I therefore judgment,

such

fully dissent.

Sheahan in capacity. his official The de- fendants filed a motion to dismiss based absolute, in part on Eleventh Amend- ment, and sovereign immunity. We agree with the district court that dep- uties are not entitled to absolute immuni- ty, and therefore affirm the court’s denial of their § motion to dismiss the claims. Because we cannot conclude as a matter law that alleged the sheriffs unconstitutional policy regarding training and supervision of deputies represents policy purposes for of Eleventh Amendment immunity, we affirm the dis- trict court’s denial of the sheriffs motion However, to dismiss. we conclude that deputies’ conduct would be attributed to the state for purposes of Illinois sover- eign immunity, and therefore reverse the district court’s denial of the deputies’ mo- tion to dismiss the state law claims. I. BACKGROUND Sheldon Nahmod (Argued), Chicago- Law, IL, College Kent Chicago, Edward Marcella appeared Richman in the Cir- Cohen, Associates, A. Block & Chicago, Illinois, cuit County, Court of Cook to chal- IL, Plaintiff-Appellee. lenge a traffic accompa- citation.1 She was son, Richman, nied her Jack who Maureen D. (Argued), Yamashiro Office planned testify as a witness. The Rich- Attorney County, State’s of Cook mans waited the courtroom for several IL, Chicago, Defendants-Appellants. called, hours before their case was and BAUER, POSNER,

Before then judge hearing continued the to a WILLIAMS, Judges. Circuit future date. The Richmans attempted to question judge them, ask a quieted but the

WILLIAMS, Judge. Circuit and when speak, Jack continued to Jack Richman shortly died after four- judge ordered him restrained. Two Cook deputies teen sheriffs County restrained him deputies began sheriffs to take during his appearance mother’s before an him custody into and twelve deputies more judge Illinois on a traffic violation. Mar- then According entered the courtroom. Richman, cella on her own behalf and complaint, on the deputies fourteen at- estate, behalf of Jack, her son’s brought floor, federal tacked forced him to the sat on and state claims against dep- Jack, the sheriffs and handcuffed him. who physi- was uties in their capacities cally individual required disabled and the use of a County cane, Cook Sheriff Michael deputies’ did not resist attempt allegations This version of events is from the defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Ham Kunard, complaint, (7th of Richman's amended which we mond v. Cir. 1998). accept purposes reviewing as true for Kunard, him, mother, mond v.

to restrain nor did his who Cir.1998); Benning Regents, deputies. cf. v. Bd. of was restrained four other (7th Cir.1991). While Jack was handcuffed and on the floor, emptied bowels, he his bladder and appeared stopped Immunity-~ and he to have breath- A. Absolute 1983 Claims ing. emergency Against Deputies Paramedics rendered as- transported sistance at the scene and then parties The are correct that we hospital, pro- him to a where he was jurisdiction, have under the collateral or

nounced dead. doctrine, der to review the district court's complaint Marcefla Richman's amended deny decision to the defendants' motion to damages against seeks immunity. dismiss based on absolute capacities pursuant their individual to 42 Forsyth, Mitchell v. 1983, alleging deputies' § U.S.C. that the (1995); 86 L.Ed.2d 411 Ham right conduct violated her and her son's to mond, 148 F.3d at 695. be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth ordinary quali rule is that complaint absolute-immunity Amendments. The also includes fied-and not is suffi against County § 1983 claims Cook Sheriff protect cient to law enforcement officers in capacity, Malley Michael Sheahan in his official the conduct of their official duties. alleging adequately Briggs, 335, 340-41, that he failed to train v. 475 U.S. 106 S.Ct. supervise 1092, (1986); in their duties 89 L.Ed.2d 271 Pierson v. using Ray, 547, 557, 1213, "to refrain from excessive force in 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct. 18 effecting seizures of citizens." The com (1967). deputies argue L.Ed.2d 288 The plaint dep ordinary apply also includes claims that rule does not Wrongful uties under the Illinois Death they required this case because were

Act, Comp. 180/1, judge's order, quasi- 740 III. Stat. and the execute the and that Act, Comp. 5/27_6.2 judicial immunity, Survival 755 Ill. Stat. a form of absolute im munity judicial immunity, derived from II. ANALYSIS appropriate providing for officers court appeal, On we must decide whether security. disagree. room We denying the district court erred in (1) begin analysis defendants' motion to dismiss based on We our with the deputies' immunity; principle judges claim to absolute fundamental are enti (2) right, immunity damages the sheriffs claimed under the tled to absolute from Amendment, judicial Eleventh to be free from suit for their conduct. Mireles v. Waco, 9, 11-12, 286, court; (3) deputies' 502 U.S. 112 S.Ct. 116 in federal (1991); White, sovereign immunity L.Ed.2d 9 Forrester v. 484 claim to under the Illi Immunity Act, 219, 225-29, 538, nois State Lawsuit 745 III. U.S. 108 S.Ct. 98 Comp. 5/1, Act, (1988). immunity Stat. and Court of Claims L.Ed.2d 555 Judicial Comp. recognized 705 Iii. Stat. 505/8. We review was at common law "as a de discouraging questions vice for collateral attacks and each of these of law de novo. DuPage County, thereby helping appellate pro DeGenova v. Sheriff of to establish 973, (7th Cir.2000); system 209 F.3d 975 Ham- cedures as the standard for cor- appeal. 2. Other defendants and claims were dis missed below and are not involved in this

435 judicial recting “protect[ error” and to dispute ] core resolution judges. function of judicial independence by judges “[W]hen insulating functions are more adminis trative prosecuted by from vexatious actions dis- character have been undertaken Forrester, pursuant explicit gruntled litigants.” judi direction of 484 U.S. officer, cial 225, 588; Pierson, we have held that that 108 S.Ct. see also officer’s 386 immunity is also 554, 1213; available to the U.S. at 87 Bradley v. subor Kincaid, dinate.” (13 Fisher, Wall.) 969 F.2d at 601. The 20 policy justifying an (1872). extension of absolute L.Ed. 646 immunity in these circumstances is to pre immunity absolute afforded to vent court personnel and other officials judges has been extended to apply “qua “ becoming from ‘lightning rod for ha si-judicial conduct” “[n]on-judicial offi rassing litigation’ aimed at the court.” See cials official integral whose duties have an Hoffman, 474, Ashbrook v. relationship with the process.” (7th Cir.1980) (quoting Kermit Constr. Henry Bank, City Farmer State Corp. v. Ponceno, Banco Y Credito Ahorro (7th Cir.1986). F.2d For exam (1st Cir.1976)); F.2d see also ple, applied we have Kincaid, 601; 969 F.2d at Mays v. Sud engaged officials decision derth, (5th Cir.1996); F.3d making, as parole such members of a Dept. Coverdell v. Social & Health board. See Kelkhoff, Wilson v. 86 F.3d Servs., (9th Cir.1987). (7th Cir.1996); 1443-44 Walrath have yet We had occasion to consid- States, United er whether law enforcement officers Cir.1994). officers, For these con whose charged using with unreasonable force “functionally comparable” duct is to those person a seizing pursuant to a Anderson, judges, of Antoine Byers & judge’s quasi-judicial order are entitled to Inc., 429, 436, 508 U.S. 113 S.Ct. immunity. Two other circuit ap- courts of (1993); Wilson, L.Ed.2d 391 86 F.3d at peal have question, addressed this with 1443, the rationale applying for different In results. Martin v. Board of immunity is much the same judges: as for Commissioners, County 909 F.2d that making quasi-judicial officials deci (10th Cir.1990), the Tenth Circuit held that “ sions should be free of ‘the harassment officers with charged employing excessive and intimidation associated litiga with force to a execute bench warrant were not ” Vail, tion.’ Kincaid v. See 969 F.2d immunity. entitled to absolute The Tenth (7th Cir.1992) 600-01 (quoting Burns v. that, Circuit reasoned because an to order Reed, 500 U.S. 111 S.Ct. take custody into someone carries it with (1991)). 114 L.Ed.2d 547 deputies The do an implicit order not to use unreasonable they not claim comparable that exercise a force, judge’s the order would not shield discretionary form of decision making.3 the officers a from claim challenging the deputies rely The instead on a different they manner in which enforced the order. sort of quasi-judicial immunity, which we Id. The court distinguished its earlier hold- have recognized Denver, some whose ing officials in v. City Valdez functions are further Cir.1989), removed from the that law enforcement 3. The characterize immunity. their conduct as entitled to absolute See Thomas ministerial,'' is, Torts, 376, "classically (Chica- Cooley, that without the M. Law of 392-98 1880); go, their own Callaghan exercise of discretion. Floyd See Black’s see also Me- R. (7th ed.1999). chem, Dictionary Officers, Law §§ At com- Offices and Public law, 1890). mon (Chicago, such conduct a Callaghan sheriff was not 12-13, -112 at 502 U.S. judge’s contempt order were decision. a enforcing officers contrast, conduct when the By immunity for S.Ct. 286. quasi-judicial to entitled judge’s the deci- challenged is not directly imprisonment. arrest false claims of in that making, the manner which at sion but Valdez, not directed claim was In enforced, agree with the we decision is order was in which the manner the law enforcement Tenth Circuit expressly executed, at conduct instead but fidelity specific orders officer’s of this order. Because by the prescribed boundary labeling judge marks the difference, policies held that the the court Martin, 909 “quasi-judicial.” act im- of absolute the extension underlying F.2d at 404-05. accountable holding officials munity —not to avoid— they powerless are for conduct Judge Lay points as important, More Martin, at 404- apply. did not Hendren, in Míreles in dissent out his 05. the incident must that the facts of “directs general in relation opposite be evaluated reached the Circuit Eighth The Hendren, 127 Hendren, function of the officer.” in Martin conclusion J., dissenting). In mak- case, one, (Lay, at (8th Cir.1997), F.3d a like this evaluation, na- “we examine the this was restrained plaintiff which the particu- with which a ture of the functions judge. The by order of courtroom has or class of officials been lar official rejected the Tenth Circuit’s Eighth Circuit entrusted, and we seek evaluate lawfully alleged impro- held that reasoning, and exposure particular the effect (using excessive the officers’ acts priety of seizure) liability likely on the forms of would have did not force to effectuate those functions.” appropriate charac- exercise of quasi-judicial acts of their strip the Forrester, 108 S.Ct. Eighth Circuit at 721-22. ter. Id. statement Supreme on the Court’s relied immunity cases dem- quasi-judicial Our “ judicial immunity ‘[i]f in Míreles that to be primary onstrate that the function judge will it means that anything, means deci- or protected immunity because deprived be cases chal- making. This is true of sion or was in ... action he took was error discretionary quasi- conduct lenging ” 127 F.3d at authority.’ excess of his board, body parole a see Wil- judicial like 12-13, Míreles, (quoting 502 U.S. at son, 1443-44, it also true at and is 86 F.3d 286). inte- persons lawsuit is aimed at when the judicial con- gral process but whose Eighth the Circuit We believe far, comparable” to a “functionally is in Míreles too duct not reasoning the stretches Antoine, 436, 113 508 U.S. at suggested by judge’s. See question the confuses Wilson, 2167; at For 86 F.3d 1443. in the S.Ct. 'the Tenth Circuit Martin —whether im- example, recognized we have absolute specifically or- challenged conduct was munity for law enforcement officials separate ques- the by judge-with dered the (the act of challenged conduct lawful or the mere tion whether the conduct was spe- was judgment) a foreclosure authority. enforcing In Mí- the actor’s exceeded Henry, reles, cifically by judge. the See challenged judge’s the ordered plaintiff the The of the is, at 1238-39. source by suing judge. the directly order —that Henry judge’s was the plaintiffs wrong challenged that when Míreles holds the itself, and we reasoned that suit mak- order judge’s own conduct is the decision appropri- the officers was not immunity against the ing, applicability of absolute the validity of challenging the of the ate vehicle turn on the correctness cannot linske, Cir.1987) that order. See id. Under those circum- stances, (clerk immunity extension of absolute is and court reporter who prepared primarily protect to the enforcement and filed a false certificate summarizing an performed by deputies, function the but instruction conference at the direction of protect judicial rather to the decision-mak- judge the were entitled to by discouraging function collateral at- immunity); Letsinger, Lowe v. 112.F.2d cf. encouraging appeals. tacks and id. at (7th Cir.1985) (court clerk who It further avoids the “untenable allegedly entry concealed of order was not requiring result” of and other “sheriffs immunity entitled to absolute for his minis court officers who enforce properly en- terial act of failing type to and send notice judgments pursuant facially tered valid entry contrast, after of judgment).4 By courts, appellate court orders to act as Supreme the Court has held that a court reviewing validity both enforce- reporter was not entitled to im absolute underlying ment orders and the judgments munity for her (losing own misconduct her proceeding Id.-, before to collect on them.” trial notes failing provide a tran 113; Valdez, Mays, see also 97 F.3d at 878 script trial), of the reasoning that “court F.2d at 1289. reporters do not exercise judg the kind of Similarly, personnel for court and ad ment protected by that is the doctrine of juncts discretionary who do not exercise a Antoine, immunity.” See comparable judge’s, justi function to a 437, 113 S.Ct. 2167. fication for extending policies qua articulated our compelling most when the lawsuit chal si-judicial immunity cases have less force lenges specifically by conduct directed when, case, inas challenged this con judge, simply and not the manner in which duct is the manner in which judge’s judge’s directive was carried out. See out, order is carried and not spe conduct (clerk Kincaid, 969 F.2d at 601 who re cifically judge. directed Reading accept filing fused to complaint at the complaint Richman’s in the light most fa direction of the judge qua was entitled to her, vorable to the claim is not that si-judicial immunity); Dellenbach v. Let (7th Cir.1989) judge deputies ordered the singer, use unrea (court force, sonable but that reporter plain and clerks who told ex pay unnecessary tiff to ceeded the order transcript at the manner request judge they were which entitled to executed it. The claim for quasi-judicial immunity); Eades v. damages Ster- in this case is not therefore a Coverdell, (child quasi-judicial immunity 4. The protec cases oth from 834 F.2d at 764-65 by deputies similarly er circuits cited the in tive quasi-judicial services worker entitled to challenges prescribed volved by to conduct immunity executing apprehend for order to a the court’s order or direction. See Gallas v. Rauch, child); 842, (6th Bush v. 38 F.3d 847 760, Supreme Pennsylvania, Court 1994) (court of quasi-judi Cir. entitled official to (3d Cir.2000) (court 772-73 en administrator immunity carrying cial for the out order of immunity damages titled to for for release of Freeze, 107, judge); the Robinson v. by judge); Mays, information ordered a 97 (8th 1994) (holding 109 Cir. that officers 108, (official quasi- F.3d at 114 entitled to immunity only would be entitled to absolute judicial immunity compliance” for "strict “specifically by for conduct ordered the trial order, facially with valid but not for conduct function”); judge judicial related and order); scope that exceeded the the of Roland Valdez, (officers 878 at F.2d 1289-90 entitled 552, Phillips, Cir. quasi-judicial immunity enforcing to for con 1994) (sheriffs entitled to immu order). tempt order); nity executing facially for a valid court 438 (an effects that vexatious sitive to the ill judge’s order on the attack

collateral valid), judicial the function concedes was lawsuits can have on Richman that order judge’s order would in other they dangers are to similar appeal an than and depu- remedy. Similarly, the not provide Although Congress no has contexts.... upon to answer being are not called im- judicial ties back the undertaken to cut by judge, the but wrongdoing directed Court, for we recognized by this munities that conduct. And for their own instead in extend- at as cautious should be least they in en- manner which conduct—the as we have been ing those immunities an implicates ex- the forced pecu- whose dealing with officials order — ecutive, judicial, function. than know less well our problems liar we own.

Moreover, policies that the we believe in Hen- by Eighth the Circuit articulated Forrester, 226, at 108 484 U.S. S.Ct. 538 justify the exten- are insufficient to dren omitted). (citation immunity urged here. sion (in Finally, difference terms only the expressed alarm at Eighth Circuit the liability damages) between the abso security exposing court of- possibility immunity here lute urged acting on liability for a “potential ficers to qualified immunity that is and the orders could breed judge’s courtroom officers ordinary rule for law enforcement fatal, See even hesitation.” dangerous, knowingly former shields even is Hendren, 722. But 127 F.3d at without in incompetent or acts. plainly unlawful See the vital and often any way minimizing 341, Malley, 475 at 106 S.Ct. 1092. U.S. provide who secu- service of those valorous immunity provides an additional Absolute participants rity judges to other whose actions are benefit even officers process, we note that the need for judicial it allows them to avoid reasonable because potentially in the face of immediate action litigation that would be re altogether the unique not a situation consequences fatal is their entitle quired order to determine courtrooms, qualified immunity and yet tradeoff, immunity. The qualified ment to (which particular into takes account however, knowingly is that victims even officers) faced is the circumstances remedy, without a go unlawful acts officers of all rule for law enforcement ap is for that reason absolute 340-41, kinds, 475 at Malley, see U.S. 106 only when it is plied with caution and Pierson, 1092; 557, at 386 U.S. S.Ct. at necessary protect the function issue. officers including secret service S.Ct. Forrester, 484 U.S. 108 S.Ct. guarding with the President. See charged Antoine, 538; n. U.S. at 432 Biyant, U.S. Hunter v. 2167; Reed, S.Ct. Burns (1991) (per L.Ed.2d 589 S.Ct. 486-87, 114 L.Ed.2d curiam). That the conduct occurs (1991). necessary A courtroom is secure courtroom, not, opinion, justify does in our judicial function from protect inter rule. In this re- applying our different intimidation; ference or this function Supreme Court has cautioned gard, immunizing a adequately protected by overly solicitous of being our person, see judge’s order to restrain a immunity involving claims of 12-13, 286, Míreles, 112 S.Ct. 502 U.S. function: a by challenge barring lawsuits reasonably wonder whether can One aimed at judge’s through decision claims respon- primarily who have judges, been more than nothing imple officers who do developing the law of official sible F.2d at 1238-39. immunities, Henry, ment it. See 808 inevitably more sen- are not

439 function, (1977); Scott, necessary It is not 975 F.2d at 370. Under law, deny remedy to also a Illinois judgment, in our sheriffs are classified as coun- state, officials, by ty, who were harmed not not plaintiffs and when the sheriff order, by by “performs but unlawful conduct his duties as the principal exec- it. affirm those who enforce We therefore utive officer or chief law enforcement offi- of the cer of deputies’ county, county the district court’s denial he acts as a § plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the 1983 official” and the Eleventh Amendment Scott, 371; apply. claims.5 does not 975 F.2d at Franklin, 684; 150 F.3d at Ruehman v. s§ B. The Eleventh Amendment — Sheahan, 525, (7th Cir.1994). 34 F.3d Against Claims the Sheriff However, county may sheriff act as an arm of the performing state when certain Sheriff Sheahan claims that Ruehman, 528; functions. 34 F.3d at denying court erred in district his motion Scott, dismiss, so, 975 F.2d at 371. When he does in which he asserted that the challenging suit that conduct is against the plain Eleventh Amendment barred state, damages may and the claim for § not alleging tiffs 1983 claim that he faded brought Ruehman, be in federal court. adequately supervise to train and dep 528; Scott, F.3d at 975 F.2d at 371. jurisdiction, uties. We have under the col doctrine, lateral order to review the dis In determining whether the sheriff is an trict court’s denial of the sheriffs claim to agent government of Illinois per- immunity. Eleventh Amendment See particular functions, forming we have Aqueduct Puerto Rico & Sewer Auth. v. degree looked to the of control exercised Inc., 139, Eddy, & 506 U.S. 146- Metcalf by Illinois over the conduct at issue and 47, 684, (1993); 121 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. whether policy the Eleventh Amendment DeGenova, 975; 209. F.3d at Franklin v. (as avoiding op- interference with state Zaruba, (7th Cir.1998). posed county) policy by is offended Because we cannot conclude as a matter of Ruehman, 529; lawsuit. See 34 F.3d at alleged policy law that the unconstitutional Scott, Scott, 975 F.2d at 371. In for exam- represents poli of the sheriffs office ple, deputy sheriffs were sued their cy, we affirm the district court’s denial of capacities official executing a writ of the sheriffs motion to dismiss. assistance issued an court. Illinois We noted that because the sheriff had “a stat- Richman sued Sheahan in his of utory, non-discretionary duty to execute ficial capacity, therefore the claim is writ,” this acting were as against entity of which he an agent. state, Scott, county, not officers. Graham, Kentucky at 371. (1985); 105 S.Ct. 87 L.Ed.2d 114 v. O’Grady, Scott But not all carry- actions associated with Cir.1992). The Eleventh deputies’ duty Amendment does out the to execute the apply to suits counties or other state court’s orders are actions on behalf Ruehman, government local entities. Mt. Healthy example, of the state. For City Sch. Dist. Bd. v. Doyle, plaintiff challenged design Educ. 429 the the sheriffs system U.S. 50 L.Ed.2d 471 of a to track warrants issued opinion deputies’ 5. This has been circulated to the full entitlement to immu- court before release in accordance with Cir- nity. Judge grant rehearing Bauer voted to 40(e). majority cuit Rule A did not favor a en banc. rehearing question en banc on the or any policy regarding, noted, that Illinois has with consistent We courts. state over, training chal- his or Scott, official-capacity any suit control an exercises that war- of the execution in the of force deputies’ deputies the use lenging supervision of the against state a suit would be rants Rueh- executing court orders. Cf. were issued the the warrants because DeGenova, man, 529; 209 F.3d 34 F.3d at How- at 528-29. Illinois courts. Instead, on an the sheriff relies at 976. that warrant-tracking system ever, the to requires that the sheriff Illinois statute complaint plaintiffs of the at the heart was of Illinois courts: obey orders implemented and the designed was shall, by depu- in or person Each sheriff and did county government, and sheriff officer, court or ty, county corrections policy: state “State implicate not therefore officer, upon all courts security attend right arrest the the Sheriff to requires law county when ses- in his or her in held how nothing about he says people but sion, lawful and obey and orders at 529. do it.” Id. should court, main- of and shall directions Ruehman, in claim As security tain the of the courthouse. in does not this case against the sheriff Comp. 55 Ill. Stat. 5/3-6023. of the the mere execution challenge office. Nor by the court’s order sheriffs from are unable to conclude We hold sheriff liable as it seek to does county oper sheriff provision this theory that employer, a is deputies’ respect a state with ates as officer City York by Monell v. New foreclosed ex here. Aside from the alleged conduct 658, 692, Servs., U.S. Dept. Soc. of obey sheriffs plicit command that orders (1978). In 56 L.Ed.2d 5.Ct. courts, assigns Illinois law re Illinois stead, against the sher Richman’s claim security gener sponsibility courtroom alleged unconsti is based on its iffs office ally county sheriff. Id. The sheriff to the (its adequately to policy failure tutional obey whether has no discretion deputies delib supervise train orders, are aware of no but we plaintiffs rights) erate indifference policy directing state the sheriffs actions when arresting the use of force regarding training supervision regarding the pursuant in the courtroom persons carrying of force in out deputies the use Therefore, we must deter judge’s order. may state court orders. evidence alleged policy repre whether that mine otherwise, stage at show but this county policy. or policy state instead sents cannot conclude as a mat proceedings, we County, Ala See McMillian Monroe alleged ter of law unconstitutional bama, 117 S.Ct. 520 U.S. Therefore, policy policy. DeGenova, represents (1997); L.Ed.2d 1 Ruehman, affirm the district court’s denial of 975-76; we at F.3d motion to dismiss.6 does not contend Sheriff Sheahan’s Sheriff Sheahan 529. (7th Cir.1998), held which to absolute immu- Sheriff Sheahan’s claim nity underlying the suit is without merit because an vio- that without constitutional capacity. lation, him in his liability official on a failure to there can be no County Narcotics Intel- However, v. Tarrant Leatherman theory. if there is a consti- train Id. Unit, ligence and Coordination (a question we do ad- tutional violation (1993). 113 S.Ct. 122 L.Ed.2d here), dam- an from dress officer’s claim that he cannot Also without merit is his negate ages the existence of that does not liable if the are immune. The be violation. Lake, County Tesch v. Green sheriff relies on

441 Sovereign Immunity way, Law F.3d at 498. Either C. collateral —State Deputies Against

Claims provides order doctrine ap- the basis for pellate jurisdiction principles under the of moved to dismiss the state Mitchell, 525-30, 472 at U.S. 105 S.Ct. claims, wrongful death and survival assert- 2806, and Eddy, & 506 U.S. at they sovereign were entitled to Metcalf 145-16, 113 684. See Griesel v. immunity under the Illinois State Lawsuit Hamlin, (11th 338, 340-41 Act, 5/1, Cir. Immunity Comp. 745 Ill. Stat. 1992) curiam) Act, (per (holding that Comp. Court of 705 Ill. Stat. denial of Claims depu- immunity The district court denied the officer’s under state law is an 505/8. motion, holding ties’ that the lawsuit order); was immediately appealable collateral against purposes not a suit the state for of (2d Napolitano 617, Flynn, v. 621 sovereign immunity. appeal, Illinois On Cir.1991) (same). deputies argue that the district court’s wrong decision was aas matter of Illinois Deputy executing sheriffs or agree.

law. We may ders of the court agents be purposes state for of sovereign Illinois im The Illinois State Lawsuit Immu munity. Sheahan, Alencastro v. 297 Ill. Act, 5/1, nity provides 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 478, 665, App.3d 232 Ill.Dec. 698 N.E.2d that the State of is immune from Illinois (1998). 1095, agent’s 1101 An conduct will court, in any except provided suit as in the purposes be attributed to the state for Act, Court of Ill. Comp. Illinois Claims 705 “ ‘(1) (and sovereign immunity if: no [there are] other Stat. statutes not relevant 505/8 here), jurisdiction allegations agent employee that an or which vests over state against beyond tort claims in scope state the Illinois the State acted of his (2) immunity acts; Court of Claims. These state authority through wrongful apply rules to Richman’s law claims duty alleged to have been breached was in Benning federal court. v. Bd. Re public not owed to the generally indepen (7th 775, Cir.1991); gents, 928 F.2d employment; dent of the fact of State 1045, Magdziak Byrd, v. (3) 1048 complained-of ... actions involve Cir.1996). ordinarily employee’s matters within that normal and official functions of law, Under Illinois a claim ” 295, Healy Vaupel, State.’ v. I11.2d 133 against individual officers will be consid 368, 1240, 140 Ill.Dec. 549 N.E.2d 1247 state, when, ered a claim against even (1990) Sutton, (quoting Robb v. 147 Ill. here, in as the officials are sued their 710, 85, App.3d 101 Ill.Dec. 498 N.E.2d capacities, “judgment individual if for the 267, (1986)); Benning, 272 F.2d at plaintiff operate could to control the ac protection, “Sovereign affords no subject liability.” tions of or the State it to however, alleged when it is the State’s Lao, 151, Currie 148 Ill.2d 170 Ill.Dec. agent statutory in acted violation of or 297, (1992); 592 N.E.2d Feldman constitutional law or excess of his au Ho, (7th Cir.1999). If F.3d Stass, thority.” Nichol v. Ill.2d the state law claim is deemed be N.E.2d 248 Ill.Dec. state, then it must be dismissed. This (2000); Healy, 140 Ill.Dec. 549 N.E.2d because, law, under the deputies Illinois Feldman, 1247; see also 171 F.3d at 498 immunity, would have absolute and under (“Illinois Amendment, practice by follows the federal the Eleventh the claim for making exception an for situations damages against may the state not be Feldman, brought public employee federal court. 171 which the did not act scope his are within the of agent’s or acts employment of his scope the within Constitution.”). act was authority, agent’s the fact that the the violated disposi- is specifically not authorized not principles, we con these Applying tive, kind he long general so as it is of the the Illinois would consider that clude motivated, and is perform, authorized to is against claims death and survival wrongful by purpose a to serve the part, at least Rich- to be the state. deputies the Ill. Albergo, v. 254 principal.7 See Janes and survival wrongful state death man’s 951, 576, 626 N.E.2d App.3d 193 Ill.Dec. alleged dependent on the are not claims 1127, (1993); City Gaffney v. 1132-33 of violation, on a but instead constitutional 41, 40, Chicago, Ill.App.3d 302 236 Ill.Dec. negligence, so of wilful and wanton theory 914, (1998); v. 706 N.E.2d 919-20 Mitchell immunity for unconstitu exception the Co., Ill.App.3d 291 Norman James Constr. apply. does not Medina tional conduct Cf 881, 872, 927, 878 225 Ill.Dec. 684 N.E.2d 385, 179 Chicago, 238 City Ill.App.3d v. of Puccia, (1997); Ill.App.3d 97 Sunseri (1992) 658, 490, N.E.2d 498 Ill.Dec. 606 925, 488, 716, 422 930 52 Ill.Dec. N.E.2d inconsistency (holding that there was no (1981). allega Similarly, if there are no jury’s plaintiff for on verdict between acting the was for a tions that defendant death claim and for defendant on wrongful the purpose employment, unrelated to his § claim of “Two dif 1983 excessive force: was wilful and wan fact that the conduct involved.”); Leavitt v. standards are ferent the not take the conduct outside ton does P’ship, Ill.App.3d Tower Ltd. 252 Farwell purposes for scope agency defendant’s of 88, 48, 260, 52 Ill.Dec. 625 N.E.2d 192 Janes, sovereign immunity. of See 193 (1993) (wrongful requires death a claim 576, 1132; Rembis decedent, Ill.Dec. 626 N.E.2d at duty, of a breach owed Trustees, 1, Ill.App.3d v. Bd. proximately caused decedent’s which of death, N.E.2d 799-800 pecuniary damages). Further Ill.Dec. White, (1993); more, Ill.App.3d allege Campbell Richman that the does conduct was not their nor 152 Ill.Dec. 566 N.E.2d deputies’ within (1991). duties, duty alleges deputies’ mal and the to Jack that owed Richman the depu wanton, Richman was owed virtue of the wilful and but there conduct was the court’s obligation ties’ to enforce nothing complaint is the that would then, question, The critical for de order. was deputies’ indicate that the conduct termining deputies’ to sov entitlement by purpose motivated a other execut than immunity whether the ereign con judge’s order. We therefore authority. beyond scope acted of their with deputies’ clude actions were Healy, 140 Ill.Dec. N.E.2d at scope authority purposes in the of their 1247; Benning, F.2d at 780. immunity. sovereign of Illinois deputies’ we conclude Because

As we noted earlier this pur- (for acts are attributable to the state for opinion purposes determining of poses sovereign of under im deputies’ quasi-judicial entitlement Immunity Act and Illinois Lawsuit allege that the State munity), Richman does not Act, the dis- of Claims we reverse deputies’ specifically conduct autho Court was However, denying deputies’ trict decision judge. rized the Illinois court’s claims. an motion dismiss the state law purposes determining whether question guided by underlying the extension of im- this we are Illinois On munity sovereign immunity, to law enforcement on law of involves officers which principles § 1983 claim. different considerations than the case, ours, The Martin v. Hendren like III. CONCLUSION police however involves officers under the court that the agree We with the district supervision immediate direction and immu- deputies are not entitled to absolute judge, following orders to re- portion Affirm that nity, and therefore store or maintain order in the court instan- denying depu- court’s order the district ter, doing what precisely they are sworn to § Richman’s ties’ motion to dismiss Indeed, job do. it is to do this of maintain- as a claims. Because we cannot conclude at the bidding judge order of the alleged matter of law that the unconstitu- very they present is the reason are in the policy at issue here was state policy tional courtroom. Amendment, purposes for of the Eleventh In formulating finding granting portion Affirm that of the district we quasi-immunity, these officers it is difficult denying the sheriffs motion court’s order improve language majority to on the of the § claims. Fi- to dismiss Richman’s 1983 of circuit: opinion eighth nally, deputies’ we that the con- conclude quasi-judicial “Absolute immuni for duct would be attributed to the state ty judicial derives from absolute immu sovereign immunity of under the purposes 552, nity.” Phillips, Roland v. F.3d 19 Immunity Act and Illinois State Lawsuit (11th Cir.1994). Judges 555 are abso Act, of and therefore Re- Court Claims money lutely immune from suit for portion verse that of the district court’s damages they judicial act in their denying deputies’ order motion to dis- their “taken capacity, unless actions are the state law claims. miss jurisdic complete in the absence of all Duty Springdale, City tion.” [v. BAUER, dissenting. Judge, Circuit (8th Cir.1994)]. Ark., 42 A F.3d 460 judge’s immunity extends to respectfully majority I dissent. The “ public they spe officials for ‘acts are County finds Martin v. Board Commis cifically required to do under court or (10th Cir.1990) sioners, 909 F.2d 402 ” judge’s der or at a direction.’ Robin persuasive” “more than Martin v. Hen (8th Freeze, 107, son v. 109 (8th Cir.1997). dren, 127 F.3d 720 Cir.1994) (quoting Rogers Bruntrag circuit police tenth case involved conduct (8th Cir.1988)). er, 856 F.2d warrant; serving eighth a bench officials, enjoy Like other bailiffs abso virtually all with circuit case is on fours immunity for quasi-judicial lute actions the instant case. “specifically judge ordered the trial quarrel I have no with the result judicial and related to the function.” case; circuit it reached the tenth differs Martin, subduing Id. In Hendren was arrests all from run-of-the-mill bailiff, obeying spe facto acting as de and, any judicial pursuant made to warrant judicial cific commands to restore order away from the place since the arrest takes un in the courtroom. Those orders away eye courtroom and from the watchful judicial func questionably related the war- officer who issued Waco, tion. See Mireles v. rant, the conduct of the is more police 12-13, 286, 288-89, scrutiny. Nor likely require (1991) curiam); to a closer is (per Terry v. L.Ed.2d 9 State, the immediate service of the warrant nec- 303 Ark. 796 S.W.2d (1990). essary proper court provide with the entitled to ab Hendren thus needed to continue the work of from decorum solute liability carrying § out the court. courtrooms, exposing in their bailiffs handcuff Martin and als orders to judge’s security po- from the courtroom. and other court officers remove her acting judge’s on a liability tential if Hendren is argues even Martin danger- courtroom orders could breed immune for im liability from absolutely orders, ous, fatal, “For the Hendren hesitation. even plementing function, quasi-judicial capacity in a ... justice system to act criminal ceased using out those orders when he carried their courts must be able to assume Martin v. Board force. See excessive orders will be enforced.” Patterson Comm’rs, F.2d County Riesen, 1235, 1241 Von curiam) (10th Cir.1990) of (per (holding Cir.1993). absolutely using immune for

ficers not Hendren, at 721- Martin v. F.3d executing arrest war force excessive rant). decided, Martin was how After As to the horrific scenario envisioned ever, judge’s held a Supreme the Court (and dissent, dryly Judge Lay’s the court force, issued in order to use excessive “... properly!) responded we need not judicial judi judge’s capacity, the was speculate hypothetical about situations judge cial act for which the retained holding.” testing the limits of our Mireles, immunity. 12-13, 112 at at S.Ct. 288-89. U.S. in reversing A decision the trial court the emphasized that the nature of Court is, my opinion, the instant case in both partic being performed, function not the logical necessary, if courtroom deco- itself, judicial im ular act controls the preserved suggest rum is to be at all. To re munity inquiry. See id. The Court judge absolutely that the immune from jected impropriety idea that the of a the liability requiring the to take a bailiffs immunity, judge’s strips judge act the person custody refusing into the court’s immunity reasoning judicial that “[i]f exposing direction while the bailiffs to lia- judge that a anything, means it means bility implications go beyond has that deprived ‘will not be be (if A it present probable response case. was in error cause the action he took being could be done without the bailiff held ” authority.’ ... or was in excess of his in contempt) suggest would be to that (quoting Stump Sparkman, Id. 435 judge, immunity, cloaked with his or her U.S. step preserve down and order himself. (1978) Míreles)). (ellipsis L.Ed.2d 331 I continue to have sufficient faith in the not ad Although the Míreles Court did judges who serve our courts to believe that quasi-judicial immunity, dress we find they will oversee the bailiff or who bailiffs reasoning persuasive in this Court’s carry out their orders the courtroom immu context. Absolute sure, otherwise, and make direction or only illusory nity protection would afford that the orders are out properly carried if it the moment an officer were lost with reasonable amount of force Further, improperly. acted the officers require. the individual cases executing in Martin an arrest war were I would reverse the district court and away issuing judge’s rant from the immuni- courtroom, Martin, hold the bailiffs to be cloaked with see 403- ty carrying out the orders carrying but Hendren was out a relating pro- court to the conduct of court command court then, ceedings It presence. judges room and Because themselves. follows frequently denying individu- I would reverse the order disruptive encounter join I dismiss. would motion to sheriffs deny- reversing order majority in to dismiss the motion deputies’ law claims. FURNISH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Kent INCORPORATED, SYSTEMS,

SVI

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-2431. Appeals, Court of

United States

Seventh Circuit.

Argued Sept. 22, 2001.

Decided Oct.

Case Details

Case Name: Richman, Marcella v. Sheahan, Michael

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Oct 16, 2001

Citation: 270 F.3d 430

Docket Number: 00-2173

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.