Virginia Office for Protection & Advocacy v. Reinhard

body personal in violation of her into her persecution. This was

bodily privacy.

Furthermore, Li resisted China’s coercive program by voicing control her

population insertion and its

opposition to the IUD’s would, however, I required

continued use. the case to the BIA to consider

remand question perse- of whether Li’s

the further resistance.

cution was on account her

VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTEC- ADVOCACY,

TION AND Plain-

tiff-Appellee, REINHARD,

DR. James his official

capacity as of the Vir- Health,

ginia Department of Mental Retardation

Mental Substance Services, Defendant-Appellant.

Abuse

No. 04-1795. Appeals, States Court of

Fourth Circuit.

April 2005.

Argued: Feb. 2005. April

Decided: Thro, Eugene

ARGUED: William State General, Attorney Office of the Solicitor Richmond, Virginia, Virginia, General of Martinis, Appellant. Jonathan Gerald Advoca- Virginia Office for Protection and Disabilities, cy, Rights Virginians with Richmond, Virginia, Appellee. ON Jerry Kilgore, Attorney BRIEF: W. Gen- Matsen, Virginia, Riley eral of Maureen General, Deputy State Solicitor Ronald N. General, Regnery, Associate State Solicitor Hickey, Attorney D. Assistant Jane Senior General, Allyson Tysinger, K. Assistant General, Richmond, Attorney Virginia, for Appellant. WILKINS, Judge,

Before Chief NIEMEYER, Judge, Circuit and Samuel WILSON, Judge G. United States District Virginia, sitting for the District of Western by designation. by published opinion.

Vacated Chief Judge opinion, WILKINS wrote the Judge Judge NIEMEYER and joined. Judge wrote a WILSON WILSON separate concurring opinion.

OPINION WILKINS, Judge: WILLIAM Chief W. (the Reinhard James Commissioner) appeals an award of attor- 10805(a)(1)(A) (providing him that P & As brought against in an action neys’ fees Virgi- investigate possible as head of the are authorized to capacity in his official Health, Mental neglect of Mental abuse and when such conduct is Department nia Abuse Services reported probable or there is cause to Retardation Substance (the occurred). Virginia Office by the an in- Department), sought believe it VOPA (VOPA), Advocacy pur- § 42 junction for Protection under U.S.C.A. 1983—or al- (West § 42 1983 U.S.C.A. portedly ternatively, requiring under the the Act— 2003). not Concluding that VOPA was compliance as well as a Commissioner’s § we assert a claim under entitled to had vio- declaration the Commissioner the award. vacate also an requested lated the Act.1 VOPA attorneys’ award of fees and costs under

I. 1988(b) (West 2003) (autho- § 42 U.S.C.A. vulnerability of the about the rizing attorneys’ Concerned court to award district injury, ill and serious mentally to abuse in a prevailing party fees to the action). the Protection and Ad- Congress enacted Ill Act of

vocacy Mentally for Individuals court Following hearing, the district (the Act). §§ 10801- See U.S.C.A. injunction preliminary ordering entered a (West Supp.2004). 1995 & The Act the Commissioner to disclose the informa- pro- operate to establish and helps states Thereafter, sought. parties tion the (P As) advocacy systems & tection and settlement, joint upon reached a their for, of, the and advocate protect the motion, an order the district court entered independent ill. an Vir- mentally VOPA is (the Order) directing Merits the Commis- agency that serves as the Com- ginia state provide sioner" to the information Ann. P & A. See Va.Code monwealth’s January requested through had VOPA (LexisNexis Supp.2004). § 51.5-39.2 Order, In the Merits the district investiga- of This arises out suit VOPA’s parties the had recognized court complaints neglect on tion—based —into majority of the issues “agreed to settle im- Department’s establishment and the and that the dispute between them” discharge plans per- for plementation “claims remaining claims were VOPA’s Depart- mental illness whom the sons with prevailing party it is a from “ready discharge” ment deemed and that it is entitled U.S.C. identify which In order to its institutions. attorney’s fees under U.S.C. “ready for individuals had been deemed award, all amount of such fee and the requested that discharge,” VOPA by the disputed [Com- of which claims are it with the names provide J.A. 84-85. missioner].” individ- and contact information of all such moved for an award refused, subsequently uals. When the Commissioner § 1988. attorneys’ fees and costs under him in his offi- of brought against suit motion, ar- opposed the The Commissioner alleging cial that it was entitled capacity, alia, not a guing, infor- inter listing to a of the names and contact thus party under 1983—and prevailing had not Department mation of clients who 1988—because not entitled fees discharged days being been within VOPA, could not be agency, as a state discharge by their treat- ready deemed in a 1983 suit. The Commis- plaintiff 42 U.S.C.A. ment teams. See ment, subsequently dis- but that claim sought a declaration that 1. VOPA also missed. the First Amend- Commissioner had violated that, already notwithstanding appealed ruling, argued sioner complaint, law of the case. Nat’l Home allegations Equity its its See VOPA’s (4th Face, Ass’n v. actually obtained under Ex Mort. 322 F.3d relief had been Cir.2003) (holding that proposition Young, Parte properly brought the action was L.Ed. 714 which authorizes “suits § 1983 was the law of the case and could against prospective equi officers for challenged ongoing of fed be the context of a sub table relief from violations sequent fee award motion Lytle Griffith, eral law.” because (4th Cir.2001). after plaintiff purporting The district court re obtained relief jected sue under the district court deter argument, the Commissioner’s con properly brought mined the action was cluding legal authority that VOPA “has the § § a 42 under and the defendant unsuc capacity bring and to U.S.C. cessfully appealed challenging without that action.” J.A. 143. The court therefore determination). granted VOPA’s motion and directed the parties attempt agreement reach re We do not read the Merits Order garding the amount of fees and costs to be deciding as entitled parties agreed fig awarded. The § only relief under however. The $16,195.00, ure of and the district court § mention of in the Merits Order is judgment in that entered VOPA the statement claims re “[t]he amount. maining before this Court are [VOPA’s] that it a prevailing party claims is under II. § 42 U.S.C. and that it is entitled to appeal, On the Commissioner contends § attorney’s fees under U.S.C. that the in awarding district court erred award, and the amount of such fee all because, § fees to VOPA under a as disputed by of which are [Com claims agency, state VOPA not entitled to J.A. 85. conclude that in missioner].” We § a claim agree.2 assert under 1983. We any clarifying language, the absence of open statement that the Merits Order left A. prevailing party whether VOPA was “a plaintiff purports Even when a § under ... open 1983” also left the ante § assert 1983 and obtains the cedent issue of whether VOPA had ob sought complaint, relief a defendant § tained relief “under 1983.” generally may prevent by an award of fees showing plaintiff that the entitled B. to assert a claim under 1983. See Md. Montgomery

Pest Control Ass’n v. inap- Coun With the law of the case doctrine (4th Cir.1989) 160, 161-63 ty, here, (per plicable the Commissioner maintains curiam). contends, however, the district in deciding court erred attorneys’ when it moved for bring fees the dis could suit determined, already trict court had in the Section 1983 allows and “citizen[s]” “other Order, jurisdiction” Merits the relief person[s] VOPA ob within the tained was under 1983. VOPA main legal equitable United States to seek who, tains that “person[s]” because the Commissioner had relief from under color of remaining challenges 2. Because we vacate the fee award on this to the award. basis, we do not address the Commissioner’s wherein the Court federally pro- 105 L.Ed.2d law, deprive them (empha- “person” that a state is not rights. U.S.C.A. held tected added). contends The determining who can be sued sis agency, is Will, is a state that because VOPA at 1983. See 491 U.S. “person” within .meaning 2304. The Will Court reasoned 109 S.Ct. agree. We statute. enacting Congress “in did not immu intend to override well-established in a federal The word law,” under the common nities or defenses “corporations, includes generally statute sovereign im including doctrine of “[t]he firms, associations, partner companies, 67, 109 munity.” Id. at S.Ct. 2304. societies, companies, joint stock ships, § 1 U.S.C.A. as individuals.” as well the issue Supreme The Court revisited 2005). time, (West the Su At the same sovereign entity person of whether “person” should has held that preme Court County v. Paiute- Inyo include the construed to not be generally Indians, 123 S.Ct. Shoshone v. Omaha Indian sovereign. See Wilson Inyo Coun Tribe, 442 U.S. aby §a 1983 suit initiated ty concerned it is not a Though declaratory seeking Native American tribe exclusion,” of United and fast rule “hard injunctive establishing right its relief 600, 604- Corp., 312 U.S. Cooper States v. from sovereign entity a to be free as 05, 742, the 85 L.Ed. 61 S.Ct. Inyo County, 538 processes. criminal See in not “person” does presumption 704-06, 1887. The Court U.S. at 123 S.Ct. sovereign may be overcome clude the a would receive that such tribe assumed statutory of showing “affirmative by an regarding treatment as a state the same Nat contrary,” Agency intent to the Vt. of subject it was whether suit. Stevens, ex rel. Res. v. States ural 709, 1887. id. at 123 S.Ct. 1983. See 1858, 765, 781, 120 S.Ct. 529 U.S. “pivot that the explained then The Court sovereign a Whether qualifies a as was “whether tribe al” issue depends “person” also entity qualifies as jurisdic the ‘person within a claimant —a in “legislative the environment” upon § 1983.” States —under tion’ of the United Georgia v. Ev appears. the word considering question, Court Id. In 161, 972, ans, 159, 62 S.Ct. 316 U.S. enjoys rights sovereign that a tribe state, noted (1942) as (holding L.Ed. 1346 tribe mem that an individual type shipped interstate purchaser asphalt of not. person would private or other commerce, “person” entitled ber qualified as Indeed, 712, Act for under the Sherman id. at S.Ct. to seek redress See trade); Inc. v. Gov’t of see that it was those sover recognized restraint Court Pfizer 584, India, 98 S.Ct. attempting 434 U.S. that the tribe was eign rights of (1978) (holding foreign that a 711, L.Ed.2d 123 S.Ct. 1887. See id. at to assert. antibiotics, nation, ranked of purchaser as contrast, noted that a tribal By the Court qualified pharmaceuti to sue “person” as a Amend his Fourth member could assert antitrust manufacturers under federal cals “like but that rights under ment laws). would that member private persons, other immunity.” [sovereign] right have no par are Supreme Court decisions

Two The Court 123 S.Ct. 1887. Id. at us. question to the before ticularly relevant maintain could not concluded that the tribe Michigan Department The first is v.Will 1983. See id. Police, 58, 109 its claim under S.Ct. 491 U.S. State of language Congress sought rights in that to protect VOPA contends that certain County suggests sovereign the result of entities as well. Inyo upon the depended reached there sover- Furthermore, pre another relevant eign rights nature of the the tribe sumption to the same result. leads us asserting, simply happened to be in Congress Will established that did not sovereign entity. fact that the tribe was tend for 1983 to include the (“There See, e.g., id. at 123 S.Ct. 1887 sovereign determining who allegation is in this case no that the Coun- Will, may be sued. See 491 U.S. at ty probable lacked cause or that the war- And, a is presumed S.Ct. 2304. term defective.”). Although rant otherwise meaning throughout have the same a stat agree we with to the extent that the Gardner, Brown v. ute. See Inyo County decision rationale is ambiguous, we need resolve ambi- Indeed, that presumption is “at its most guity assuming Inyo here. Even that the vigorous” in question when the term County based its decision at least in Court sentence, repeated in the same as it is part sovereign nature of the Id.; City here. see Chicago, Illinois v. asserted the case before it and thus did (7th Cir.1998) 137 F.3d (stating, that a sovereign not decide could never Will, plain based on that state cannot abe assert a claim under we neverthe- suit); tiff in a Rural Water cf. less conclude that an arm of the state Wilson, City Dist. No. 1 v. bring cannot suit under that statute. (10th Cir.2001) 1263, 1274 (recognizing with, presented has not us analysis that “it would be a strained of, hold, construction, are not statutory we aware affirmative as a matter of statutory municipal evidence of intent to allow suits that a corporation ‘person’ was a by sovereigns 1983 that would within one clause of section but not a general presumption overcome the ‘person’ within another clause of same (internal in a statute does not quotation include the statute” marks omit ted)); sovereign. Agency, See Vt. at Disposal U.S. S. Macomb Auth. v. Town (6th 120 S.Ct. 1858. Section 1983 was ship Washington, 790 F.2d Cir.1986) (similar). part Rights enacted as of the Civil Act of But United States cf. objective Co., primary of which was v. Cleveland Indians Baseball “to corrupting override the influence of the U.S. S.Ct. 149 L.Ed.2d (2001) sympathizers Ku Klux Klan and its (“Although general [the Court] governments agen ly and law enforcement presume[s] that identical words in used cies of the parts Southern States.” Allen v. different of the same act are intend 90, 98, 101 McCurry, 449 U.S. S.Ct. 66 ed to meaning, pre have the same It sumption was enacted most is not rigid, meaning and the specifically help enforce the may vary Fourteenth the same well words to meet the (internal Amendment persecuted quotation of the law.” omitted)). equal protection marks, the laws. See citation & alteration Lynch reasons, v. Corp., Household Fin. 405 U.S. For both of these we hold that a 538, 544-45, agency may state or state not maintain a We have no affirmative indication 1983 action.3 upon today 3. We note that we competent are not called individual who has sustained an agency acting injury to decide whether a state employ actionable under 1983 could representative capacity regard with rights. an in- 1983 to enforce that individual’s Ivey, III, Trustee for the M. Charles III. bankruptcy of J.G. Furniture estate moved for time at the Because Trustee-Appel- Group, Incorporated, had not district court attorneys’ fees the lant, the contention rejected the Com- proper plaintiff oppose the fee entitled to missioner Annuity Life & Insurance Great-West And, because on that basis. motion Company, Claimant-Appellee, employ in fact not entitled erred that the district court we conclude there- 1988. We awarding fees award. the fee

fore vacate Machine; Pifer Triad Fabrications Incorporated; Triangle Industries, VACATED Company, and Electronic Machine WILSON, concurring: Judge, District Creditors. opin- court’s agree with the completely I Company; Assurance American Home however, to note separately,

ion. I write Indemnity Company, The Travelers additional, equally is an my that there view affiliates; American Zurich and its fundamental, our result. supporting basis Support- Company, Amici Insurance is noth- this suit pretense, of its Stripped ing Appellee. over intramural contest than an ing more funds. The authori- of state the allocation No. 04-1576. one, this- a lawsuit such as ty to entertain Appeals, States Court warring factions a state’s gives Fourth Circuit. compel the real- in which to forum federal funds, in feder- place is to of state location 3, 2005. Argued: Feb. hands, to Balkanize power al court implicit I government. believe 20, 2005. April Decided: courts system that federal federal our authority. lack that GROUP, IN-

In Re: FURNITURE J.G. Apollo

CORPORATED, J.G./The d/b/a Alma Fur-

Group, Incorporated, d/b/a Incorporated, Group,

niture d/b/a J.G./

Alma, Debtor.

Case Details

Case Name: Virginia Office for Protection & Advocacy v. Reinhard

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Apr 6, 2005

Citation: 405 F.3d 185

Docket Number: 04-1795

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.