Robert K. Richardson v. James E.T. Koshiba, Joan S. Brown, Herbert C. Cornuelle, William L. Fleming, Henry T. Miyamoto, Lawrence S. Okinaga
693 F.2d 911
9th Cir.
1982
Check Treatment

*1 9H RICHARDSON, K. Robert

Plaintiff-Appellant, Brown, KOSHIBA, E.T. Joan S.

James Cornuelle, L. Flem-

Herbert C. William Henry

ing, Miyamoto, T. Lawrence S. al., Defendants-Appellees.

Okinaga, et

No. 81-4041. Appeals,

United States Court

Ninth Circuit. 21, 1982. April and Submitted

Argued

Decided Dec. Honolulu, Hawaii, Schoettle, R.

Walter plaintiff-appellant. Alston, Paul, Alston, & Paul Johnson Hawaii, Honolulu, defendants-appellees. *2 SCHROEDER, NELSON, for guidelines and selection and reten- Before BOOCHEVER, Judges. Instead, empowers Circuit tion. it the Commission promulgate to rules which shall have “the BOOCHEVER, Judge: Circuit force and effect of law.” Id. 4. The § Richardson, a former Hawaii Robert K. rules authorize it to screen judge, appeals court an ad- state district investigations to “conduct applications, into against in his suit the mem- judgment verse background qualifications and of appli- Judicial Commis- bers of Hawaii’s Selection cants,” and to interview applicants.3 With (Commission).1 challenges sion Richardson regard petitions to specific reappoint- for petition reappoint- their denial of his ment, obligate the rules the Commission to ment, alleging that the Commission’s treat- (1) publicize reappoint- violated his Fourteenth petition ment of his “in appro- ment such manner as it deems proc- due procedural Amendment to persons might to the end that all priate who monetary equitable and re- ess. He seeks have an interest in the ... re- [decision 1983, 1988.2 He lief under 42 U.S.C. §§ garding reappointment] given oppor- alleges also violations of Hawaii’s constitu- views,” (2) to their tunity investi- tion and laws. gate petitioner’s qualifications, Because the need to decide the federal petitioner. interview the The Commission by could be obviated res- process issues not, “may,” hearings regard- but need hold presented olution of the state law issues in ing reappointment.4 the merits of and because we think it more term, expiration Prior to the of his Rich- courts decide appropriate to Hawaii’s a timely petition reappoint- ardson filed these of state law con- questions sensitive press ment. The issued a re- Commission we trolling judicial appointments, abstain. acknowledging petition; lease Richardson’s Facts however, apparently purchase did not appointed six-year was to a Richardson legal classified advertisement in the notice judge court in 1974. term as state district newspapers. section of local The record term, people his of Hawaii al- During does not indicate whether the contents of by tered their method of selection release were ever press published by the to amending their constitution establish a news media. The Commission also conduct- Commission. Haw. Judicial Selection ed an extensive review of Richardson’s VI, § qualifications, during which it interviewed individuals, including numerous Richardson. The amended constitution authorizes the Commission, however, The did not inform to fill Commission to nominate individuals any Richardson of of the complaints determine whether vacancies to him, lodged against have been nor sitting judges to when their terms did retain constitution, however, opportunity The it afford him an to confront expire. Id. 3.§ provides no and cross-examine adverse witnesses.5 procedural substantive against Although 1. Rules Rules of Procedure for Hawaii’s this action Commis- individually, (hereinafter we sion’s members will sometimes Selection Judicial Commission Rules”). “the refer to the defendants as Commission.” “Commission provides: 2. 42 U.S.C. 12(D). Rule Rule 4. Commission Commission Every who, person under color of ... by which the Com- a list criteria law], subjects, subject- or causes to be [state applicants. The rules do not mission evaluates ed, any of the United States citizen apply when evalu- state whether these criteria deprivation any rights, privileges, or im- ating petitions reappointment. by munities secured the Constitution and laws, party injured shall be liable to the in an not indicate the content of 5. The record does law, equity, proper action at suit in or other interviews, any any nor whether com- proceeding for redress.... regarding plaints had been raised 42 U.S.C. at- authorizes an award of performance. judicial qualifications or torney’s prevailing party fees to the in a action. challenge does not the denial of reappoint Richardson Commission decided not appeal. He then this action on Richardson. filed that motion challenge procedure that decision and the against After was entered monetary was made. which it He seeks person appointed another Richardson injunctive relief. vacancy created when his term ex- fill *3 Procedural Posture Subsequently, filed pired. the Commission appeal, arguing motion to dismiss this a six Richardson’s contained filling of vacancy that the rendered four of The district court dismissed claims. request injunctive relief Richardson’s in these, granted judgment summary and monetary and that claim for relief moot the others. favor of the Commission on enjoy because was barred the defendants only of appeals disposition Richardson re- immunity. panel The motions absolute claims. four of his panel. this motion the merits ferred to II, (1) in this appeal At issue are: Count that the failed to alleges which Commission I reap- publicize petition pointment pursuant to the Commission’s Motion to Dismiss rules, deprived him of the due thereby and consider mo- We first the Commission’s the Hawaii process protections afforded If or in- monetary to dismiss. either tion Constitutions; (2) Count and States United Richardson, relief is to junctive available de- III, alleges that the Commission which deny we must motion. an to rebut opportunity Richardson nied argue they are abso- The defendants that confront against made him and to claims damages from lutely liability immune witnesses, an al- adverse and cross-examine agents are of the court and because procedural process; deprivation leged challenged performed were in their actions IV, which claims that the Com- (3) Count func- quasi-judicial furtherance their in press leaked to the mission information argues rebuttal that tions. In Richardson VI, and Haw. violation of art. agents if (1) even defendants are 5(C) thereby Rules 7 and and Commission court, in na- their functions were executive (4) damaged reputation; his name and best ture, (2) they enjoy for this reason V, alleges which that two Commis- Count (3) their qualified immunity, only con- report possible members failed sion qualified immunity ques- is a entitlement chair- interest to the flicts of trial. fact to be tion of determined Rule 5- person in violation of Commission (B).7 The district Counts court dismissed judges well It is settled that granted summary III and IV and are judge-like functions performing those V. on II and Counts immune absolutely from U.S.C. in disposi- liability8 performed

Immediately prior damage to the court’s for acts capacities. Stump v. presented tion of this Richardson their Abstention,” 435 U.S. Sparkman, “Motion for which was denied. VI, allegations of interest arise in relevant conflict

6. Haw. Const part: the commission fact that members deliberations of from the two Commission “[t]he represented shall be confidential.” law firms media work for that Advertiser) (KGMB-TV, that Honolulu clients 5(B) provides in relevant sought prohibition Rule previously 7. Commission writs of had part: relating proceedings against Richardson him. any before The two commissioners liti- occurred If a commissioner ... knows attorney relationship gious the Commission of these circumstanc- advised a[n] appli- the commissioner . .. had .. . with es. influence, relationship cant and appear immunity not extend to suits for influence, 8.Judicial does the com- the decision Todd, Shipp injunctive 568 F.2d relief. v. applicant, the commis- missioner as to this Cir.1978). 134 (9th chairper- report sioner shall this fact to son. Pier cial office to the appointing officials and of son Ray, reviewing reappointment petitions requires 1213, 1217-18, 18 “weigh it to candidates,” merits of [the] Procunier, (judges); evidence,” 641 F.2d Sellars “consider all the “conduct exten- Cir.) (9th (parole investigations,” 1301-04 board offi- sive very and “act much denied, cials), judges attempting cert. like objectively to (1981). But cf. Rankin evaluate . .. the merits of each candidate Howard, 847-49 petition.” Cir. or Although the Commission de- 1980) acting in clear absence (judge juris responsibilities scribes its “judicial” terms, diction cannot claim absolute immunity), these functions bear little resem- 68 blance to the characteristic of the (1981); Lopez Vanderwater, gave rise to the recognition of (7th Cir.) (no 1235-37 immu immunity absolute officers: *4 acts), nity non-judicial dismissed, adjudication of controversies between ad- 1028, 601, Butz, 449 101 66 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 491 versaries. See 438 at U.S. 98 (1980). 2913-17; Sellars, Those entitled absolute immuni at S.Ct. 641 F.2d at 1299. ty special Rather, it “because of the responsibilities have nature of these indicate that responsibilities” their rather than “because the Commission’s functions are executive in particular their location within the nature.10 In re Advisory Accord Opinion to Economou, Governor, Government.” Butz v. 25, 276 (Fla.1973) So.2d 29 478, 2894, 2913, (function judicial of Florida’s nominating (1978). Thus, when a court official acts in a commissions executive nature). capacity which he is not called upon to The Commission also argues that as quasi-judicial discretion, exercise an “arm of the court” its members are he is not entitled to absolute immu- immunity. entitled to absolute In support nity. Gregory Thompson, See argument, of this it cites recog cases that Cir.1974). (9th 63 Consequently, nize immunity absolute for members of bar fact that Hawaii’s Constitution attaches the grievance association committees. See Sla Commission to Hawaii’s judiciary pur- “for vin v. 574 Gurry, F.2d Cir. poses of administration”9 does not neces- 1978); Clark v. of Washington, State sarily confer absolute immunity from (9th Cir.1966). Indeed, these Instead, liability. we must examine committees are “arms of the courts” and comparability” “functional of the role enjoy their members absolute immunity. of the members to the role Nonetheless, immunity attaches because those immunity. officials who have absolute of the performed nature of the functions Sellars, See 641 F.2d at 1298. committees, i.e., these prosecuting adju claiming immunity

One dicating misconduct, has the claims professional burden demonstrating entitlement “integral it. which is an part Butz, Clark, U.S. S.Ct. at 2910. The process.” 366 F.2d at 681. The Commission contends that its functions are mere fact that these “arms” are attached to “judicial” in nature because responsibil its judicial body a does not alone entitle them recommending ities of candidates for judi- to immunity. VI, by.this argument

9. Haw. '§ because even if the Chief absolutely Justice were immune for decisions attempts 10. The Commission to refute con- pursuant responsibility appoint made to his by observing appointment clusion that the judges, district court this fact would re not judges of district court was a quire recognition immunity of similar previously performed by function the Chief responsibilities might those to whom those Supreme Justice of the Hawaii State Court. delegated. Compare Fitzgerald, Harlow v. (1976). See Hawaii 604-2 Rev.Stat. It then -, U.S. S.Ct. argues that Justice would have been the Chief Fitzgerald, - U.S. -, with Nixon v. absolutely liability for his immune from actions reappointment process, in the but no exactly unpersuaded on-point. cases We are question remains whether the Com dismiss and need not reach the issue of mission’s members are entitled to absolute whether prayer injunctive immunity though perform even relief is moot. Rhodes,

“executive” function. Scheuer 416 1687-92, 40 U.S. II (1974), negative requires Scheuer, In held that response. Court Abstention immunity absolute from 1983 suits was Although party neither briefed the issue governor for a and his inappropriate state abstention, argument, we raised it at oral Instead, only aides. those officials were sponte,12 address sua and find this case qualified immunity, scope entitled to a appropriate of the absten- depends scope of which “the of discre upon l tion doctrine enunciated in Railroad Com- responsibilities tion and of the office and al Co., mission v. Pullman the circumstances as they reasonably ap- 85 L.Ed. at the time peared of the action on which liability sought to be based.” Id. 416 U.S. Pullman the federal Since courts 94 S.Ct. at 1691. This conclusion recognized that there are “extraordi balancing protect reflects a of the need to nary exceptions and narrow” to their duty by providing damage of citizens adjudicate controversies properly before remedy for constitutional violations with County Allegheny them. v. Frank Ma protect vigorous the need to officials in the Co., shuda their discretionary authority. exercise of *5 1060, 1062-63, (1959); 3 1163 Butz, 504-06, L.Ed.2d Pue v. 438 at 98 at See U.S. S.Ct. - Sillas, 74, (9th Cir.1980). has 632 F.2d 78 The subsequently 2909 — 10. The Court balances, version struck similar and has denied ab Pullman of the abstention doctrine administrators, solute to school “in immunity presenting for abstention cases Strickland, v. 420 95 Wood U.S. a federal constitutional issue might (1975), S.Ct. presented be mooted or in a pos different presidential and Harlow v. Fitzger- aides. aby perti ture state court determination of - ald, -, 2727, 102 U.S. S.Ct. 73 County Allegheny, nent state law.” But cf. Nixon v. Fitz- 189, at 1063. S.Ct. We have - -, 2690, gerald, 73 delineated three criteria for application of (1982) (recognizing absolute (1) Pullman abstention: the must immunity rights Presidential from civil ac- touch a sensitive area of social policy into' tions). here, We strike the same balance which the federal courts should not enter hold that a qualified, good and faith immu- adjudica unless there is no alternative to the nity and “firm of the Feder- tion; (2) ruling a definitive on the state amply protect al Rules of Procedure” issues a state court could obviate the defendants from “insubstantial lawsuits.” adjudication by need for constitutional Butz, 507-08, 438 U.S. at 98 S.Ct. at 2911.11 court; proper federal and resolution possibly of the determinative state law is For these reasons we hold that the Com- Cabell, Manney sue is uncertain. See mission’s members are not entitled to abso- (9th Cir.1980), F.2d we that immunity. lute Because conclude L.Ed.2d monetary depending relief be available qualified Spokane on the resolution at trial of the Canton v. School Dis (9th Cir.1974). question, deny we the motion to trict No. immunity 2914-16; recognized Apton that executive- 438 U.S. at 98 S.Ct. at 11. Courts Wilson, (D.C.Cir.1974). might entitled to absolute 506 F.2d This branch officers immunity regard that such with to activities imitate case does not activities. legislative functions that are the immunity conferring from Wright, basis absolute Federal 12. See C. Law of Courts § See, Butz, liability e.g., (3rd 1976). in some cases. at 220 n. 18 ed. OSrH requirements. three criteria are satisfied m this

All The inquiry threshold in a First, ques case. this case involves delicate 1983 due process claim is whether operation tions that relate to the of Ha defendant was deprived of an interest en- system. waii’s merit selection We compassed by Fourteenth Amendment’s pressed would be hard to conceive of an protection of liberty property. Only more than policy area of social sensitive one after the court is the plain- convinced that appointive that relates to the selec directly tiff has a property liberty pro- interest Moreover, judiciary. tion of a state’s tected by process can it evaluate fact that Hawaii amended its constitution whether the afforded that interest provide system for a merit selection less adequate. Regents See Board of than years ago four further demonstrates Roth, 564, 569, 2701, 2705, significant is a matter local Whether Richardson Corp. concern. Cf. Rancho Palos Verdes v. can property position assert a interest in his Beach, City Laguna 547 F.2d judge depends as district court on spe- (9th Cir.1976) (finding state’s constitutional cific and benefits upon conferred oc- statutory provisions regarding land use cupants position by of that Hawaii’s consti- planning indicative of “sensitive” nature of tution and other laws. id. 408 U.S. at area). policy “exigent demands of 577, 92 at 2709 (property interests federalism” that precipitated recogni law). stem from state See also Halleck v. development tion and of the abstention doc Berliner, (D.D.C. 427 F.Supp. trine are at least great any here as in 1977); Ota, Francis v. 356 F.Supp. which we have cases in found Pull (D.Hawaii 1973).14 1032-34 On the one See, man appropriate. e.g., abstention hand, if incumbents are entitled to Manney, (state’s operation 654 F.2d at 1284 unless are unqualified juveniles); detention facilities for Inter office, to remain in we would be inclined to national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers think that constitutionally cognizable “en Commission, v. Public Services Roth, titlement” exists. See 408 U.S. at Cir.1980) (regulation of state’s pub 2709; Perry Sindermann, utilities; lic energy conservation of re *6 593, 599-603, 2694, 408 U.S. 92 S.Ct. 2698- sources); Corp., Rancho Palos Verdes 547 2700, (1972); 33 L.Ed.2d 570 Bollow v. Fed (land planning); F.2d at 1094 use Garfinkle Francisco, eral Reserve Bank of San Bank, (9th v. Wells Fargo 483 F.2d 1074 F.2d Cir.1981), Cir.1973) (state’s non-judicial system of 102 S.Ct. 71 L.Ed.2d mortgage foreclosure). (1982). hand, On the other if “legitimate office-holders have no claim second test is also satisfied. The of preferential state law issues are entitlement” potentially dispositive consideration First, petitions of this of their for respects. reappointment by case two Richard- vir- son given contends that the treatment tue of their incumbancy, they cog- his have no petition reappointment for did comport property not nizable interest in their positions with process Fourteenth Amendment due after expiration of their fixed terms. Wright, supra gener possible reappointment 13. C. note at 220. See which entitled him to ally NAACP, 167, 176-77, thorough Harrison v. 360 U.S. a and fair of evaluation his candida- 1029-30, Commission; cy by impartial an and that Creasy, Martin v. 360 U.S. plaintiff process was entitled to such 1034, 1037, (1959); Sederquist would insure that the Commission’s evalua- City Tiburon, candidacy tion of his thorough and fair. Halleck, applied 14. In the court District of Co- F.Supp. express opinion at 1236. We no analogous lumbia law to facts and concluded: regarding decision, the correctness of that nor plaintiff property that regarding did not have a interest what result must follow under Ha- panoply which entitled him full of due to the waii law. process; but that have an interest he did Roth, difficulty, at and because the resolu- at stantial See might obviate questions tion of these 2708-09.15 need to answer a federal constitutional Second, rais Richardson’s question will at least cast that question or alleged state claims based on es several we think it light, proper in a different clause, of Hawaii’s due violations the federal courts to abstain from decision Haw. I, and of the Commis passed until Hawaii’s courts have on these rules, have the force effect sion’s City of state law. delicate matters could law. A resolution of these claims Telephone Bell Tel- Meridian v. & Southern prosecute need to obviate the Co., egraph claim.16 3 L.Ed.2d this case also satis- Finally, we find that holding today is consistent with the Our crucial, third, criteri- especially fies the court policies compel several federal doctrine, of the Pullman on for instances. Among abstention in limited i.e., question uncertain presents traditionally counseled a concerns that and the state law. Hawaii’s constitution stay federal court to its hand are “the desir- guid- rules no firm provide avoiding unseemly be- ability conflict judicial incum- regard ance with to whether sovereignities, unnecessary tween two legitimate claim of entitle- bents have functions, and the impairment pre- of state prefer- or even to reappointment, ment mature determination constitutional petitions reap- ential treatment of their Sederquist, 590 F.2d at 280 questions.” addition, we find no sub- pointment. In Creasy, (quoting Martin indication of how Hawaii’s courts stantial 1037). All those factors are state law claims. treat Richardson’s would here. present controversy involves unsettled Because we hold that abstention Accordingly, which could not be of state law questions appropriate.17 the federal courts without sub- resolved by require responses ques- in turn to uncertain has asserted a lib- 15. The fact that Richardson law, erty by alleging that that cause us to find absten- interest the Commission tions of state by breaching damaged reputation appropriate his name and here. tion confidentiality preclude application of does not appropriate, doctrine. A state court determi- deciding the abstention that abstention is 17.In may property question nation of the mindful of our earlier statement we have been liberty claim in a different likely rights “are the least can- that civil cases govern posture. The criteria that decisions to Tielsch, Stephens' abstention.” didates for reappoint whether Richardson well affect Canton, (9th Cir.1974); 1360 at reputation damage his that would suffered We think the 498 F.2d at 846. reluctance to cognizable liberty as a interest. For exam- abstain in civil cases reflects two-fold requires petitions ple, if Hawaii law First, that reluctance reflects a desire concern. par reappointment be considered on with the adjudication to confer the benefits of federal upon plaintiffs *7 nominees, applications of other the Commis- jur- properly who invoke federal reappoint merely sug- decision not to sion’s See, e.g., England v. Louisiana State isdiction. gests that the found another can- Commission Examiners, 411, 415, 375 U.S. Board of Medical If, however, qualified. incumbents didate more 461, 464, (1964); 11 L.Ed.2d 440 Ste- 84 S.Ct. an which entitlement phens, F.2d at 1362. This concern is non- 502 morally only if found can be denied .are party is the who existent here since Richardson office, unqualified to continue in otherwise Second, requested reluctance abstention. reappoint might decision not to deprivation reflects a sense that the aspersions character or cast professional competence. on an incumbent’s “plainly origin in nature” and “not federal law,” entangled such as in a skein of state claims, equal protection or discrimination Manney, made clear in 654 F.2d at 16. As we by federal courts. See should be vindicated holding should not be construed 1285 n. our Education, 373 U.S. McNeese v. Board require- imposing exhaustion of remedies 1433, 1436-37, 10 L.Ed.2d 622 83 S.Ct. upon The fact that Rich- ment 1983 claims. Institute, Study American Law Accord state law claims to his civil ardson attached rights Jurisdiction between State of the Division of enough justify ab- claim is not alone 1371(g), at 50 and Federal Courts It claims are is the fact that these stention. coupled . however, process claims, case, due process involves which This with federal due objection. III defendants’ In my opinion the district court’s refusal was entirely proper. Conclusion principal Unlike the cases on which the Because the district court should have majority relies,^the governmental defend abstained, we vacate its and re- ants here have not expressed concern about apply mand. Our decision to Pullman ab- intrusion into sensitive areas of state policy; stention “does not involve [however] thus the, this case does present not “exigent jurisdiction, the abdication of federal but demands of federalism” which have influ only the of its exercise.” postponement high enced courts to incur the cost of delay NAACP, Harrison v. U.S. at 79 which abstention entails. Wright, See C. request S.Ct. at At the either (3d Law of Federal Courts 52 at 220 Ed. party, juris- the district court should retain Cabell, 1976); v. Manney 654 F.2d issues, diction of the federal constitutional (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied sub nom. pending in the state proceedings courts.18 Manney Fare, 455 U.S. 102 S.Ct. England v. Louisiana Board of Medical 1630, (1982); 71 L.Ed.2d 866 International Examiners, Brotherhood Electrical Workers v. Public (1964); Cabell, Manney Commission, 206, 209, Services 614 F.2d F.2d at 1285. (9th Cir.1980); Corp. Rancho Palos Verdes VACATED and REMANDED. Beach, v. City Laguna (9th Cir.1976). SCHROEDER, Judge, Circuit dissenting. Nor does this case the complexi I respectfully portion dissent from that ties and uncertainties of state law which majority opinion which holds that ab- have characterized other abstention cases. stention in this appropriate case. The Contrast, Harris County Commissioners holding only result of that is not to delay Moore, 77, 84-87, Court v. 420 U.S. 95 S.Ct. dispute, resolution of this but to prolong (1975); Lake potentially disruptive uncertainty in the op- MacMullan, Carriers Association v. eration of Hawaii’s selection sys- 498, 511-12, tem. (1972); Cabell, L.Ed.2d Manney disturbing 1284-85; This result would be less if the F.2d at Isthmus Landowners defendants, California, who are individuals to 1087, 1091 Ass’n v. delegated responsibility whom the state has Cir.1979). The question entitlement which retention, selection had the majority refers to state courts for reso stay asked the district court its hand. lution is no more difficult or unclear than They have not done so. Instead was the similar entitlement issues which federal See, plaintiff duplicate who filed a routinely e.g., action courts have decided. day Sindermann, state court on the before the district Perry v. suit,

court was scheduled to rule Board of Re Roth, who federal abstention sought gents over then claims, necessarily judicata, presumably which are enmeshed in dismissed as res because property ruling state law. Whether Richardson has a of the lower now court before us. If this only guarded can interest is the we note that Richardson can seek to state law. decided with reference reopen proceedings the state court under 60(b)(5), provides: Haw.R.Civ.P. holding recognize our 18. We assumes that upon just, such On motion and terms as are pursue this matter in Hawaii’s Richardson can *8 party the court relieve a ... from a final parties courts. Both indicated in their briefs following ... for the reasons: . . . filed a similar to Richardson had prior judgment upon which it is the one in the before the district court Circuit based has been reversed or otherwise vacat- day Court of Hawaii the before the district ed, longer equitable judg- or it is no that the summary court ordered the dismissals and prospective application. ment should have judgments. Although the record does not indi- Thus, Richardson is not without access to Ha- in-„ cate the status of that Richardson waii’s courts. argument formed us at oral had been Transit Golden State 686 F.2d 758 City Angeles, of Los Corp.

(9th Cir.1982); Reynolds Vanelli School (9th Cir.1982); No.

District 667 F.2d 773 Bank of v. Federal Reserve San

Bollow

Francisco, (9th Cir.1981), F.2d 1093 proceed

For these reasons I would to de- appeal the merits of from appellant’s

cide judgment.

the district court’s America,

UNITED STATES of

Plaintiff-Appellee, TAYLOR,

William T.

Defendant-Appellant. America,

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee, FLORENCE,

Billy J.

Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 81-1754. Appeals, States

United Court

Ninth Circuit. 5,May and Submitted

Argued 1, 1982.

Decided Dec. 18, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Jan.