Ngiraingas v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 07 June 1988
• Docket Number: No. 86-2840,86-2840
• Citation: 849 F.2d 372
• Parties: Alex NGIRAINGAS, Oscar Ongklungel, Jimmy Moses, Arthur Mechol, Jonas Ngeheed and Bolandis Ngiraingas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Francisco Q. SANCHEZ, individually and as a Police Officer, Joseph R. Cruz, individually and as a Police Officer, Jose T. Terlaje, individually and as a Police Officer, Joe P. Balajadia, individually and as a Police Officer, Elmer F. Sardoma, individually and as a Police Officer, Joseph A. San Nicolas, individually and as a Police Officer, Judith P. Guthertz, in her Official Capacity as Director of the Department of Public Safety (Guam Police Department), the Guam Police Department and the Government of Guam, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 372

849 F.2d 372

Alex NGIRAINGAS, Oscar Ongklungel, Jimmy Moses, Arthur Mechol, Jonas Ngeheed and Bolandis Ngiraingas Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Francisco Q. SANCHEZ, individually and as a Police Officer Joseph R. Cruz, individually and as a Police Officer, Jose T. Terlaje, individually and as a Police Officer, Joe P Balajadia, individually and as a Police Officer, Elmer F Sardoma, individually and as a Police Officer, Joseph A. San Nicolas, individually and as a Police Officer, Judith P. Guthertz, in her Official Capacity as Director of the Department of Public Safety (Guam Police Department), the Guam Police Department and the Government of Guam, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-2840.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 23, 1988.

Decided June 7, 1988.

Jeffrey R. Siegel, Gill & Siegel, Agana, Guam, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Patrick Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Government of Guam, Agana, Guam, for defendants-appellees.

Barbara L. Herwig and Michael E. Robinson, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the amicus.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam.

Before KOZINSKI and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, ^* Senior District Judge.

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge:

We consider whether the district court properly dismissed appellants' federal civil rights claims against the Government of Guam, the Guam Police Department, the Director of the Department of Public Safety, and several Guam police officers acting in their individual and official capacities.

Facts

On March 31, 1983, appellants were picked up by Guam police on suspicion of having committed certain narcotics offenses. They were taken to police headquarters in Agana where the defendant police officers allegedly "harassed, threatened, intimidated and beat[ ]" them, and forced them to write and sign a statement confessing to the narcotics crimes. Appellants filed several claims alleging numerous constitutional violations and seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986 (1982). On October 30, 1986, the district court dismissed all of the federal and pendent territorial law claims. Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, No. 85-0064 (D.Guam Oct. 30, 1986) ("Mem. Order"). It dismissed the claims against the government of Guam on the ground that Guam was immune from suit under Guam's organic act, 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1421a (1982). Mem. Order at 3-4. The court dismissed the claims against the defendants in their official capacities on the ground that the suit against these officials was, insofar as "the relief sought would affect the public treasury," a suit against the government and thus barred by sovereign immunity. Id. at 4-5 (citing Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom. Rowland v. Demery, 469 U.S. 1127, 105 S.Ct. 810, 83 L.Ed.2d 803 (1985)). Finally it dismissed the claims against the officials in their individual capacities as time-barred. Mem. Order at 5-8.

Discussion

Appellants raise a number of civil rights claims, principally grounded in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 which, inter alia, proscribes the deprivation of constitutional rights by persons acting under color of territorial law. In addition to denying many of the factual allegations on which appellants' claims rest, the government of Guam denies that it may ever be held liable under section 1983, arguing, first, that it is not a "person" within the meaning of the statute and, second, that Guam is shielded from liability by 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1421a. The individual defendants also claim immunity for actions taken in their official capacities. Several of the individual defendants argue that appellants' claims against them in their individual capacities are barred by the relevant statute of limitations. We consider each of these arguments in turn.

I. Guam's Amenability to Suit Under Section 1983

A. Section 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (emphasis added). The term "person" has long been interpreted to include "legal as well as natural persons." Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 683, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2032, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); cf. Louisville, C. & C.R.R. v. Letson, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844) ("a corporation created by and doing business in a particular state, is to be deemed for all intents and purposes as a person ..."). But precisely which legal persons are included within section 1983's scope has been the subject of much disagreement. See generally Note, Developments in the Law--Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1191-97 (1977) (describing case law).

Monell held that local governments are "persons," reasoning that "there is no justification for excluding municipalities from the 'persons' covered by [section 1983]." 436 U.S. at 701, 98 S.Ct. at 2041. While the Court quoted portions of the legislative history suggesting that the members of the 42d Congress intended to include all "bodies politic" within the definition of person in section 1983, id. at 688, 98 S.Ct. at 2034 (quoting Act of Feb. 25, 1871, Sec. 2, 16 Stat. 431), the Court did not reach the question of whether states, territories or other entities are persons under the statute. Accordingly, Monell stands only for the narrow proposition that municipalities and other local government units are persons for purposes of section 1983. See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 915, 922-23, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); City of Oklahoma v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 817-18, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 2433-34, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985). The relevant question after Monell is not whether an entity is among those bodies politic intended to be included in the Act, for the legislative history is, in that regard, inconclusive, see Note, 90 Harv.L.Rev. at 1192 ("the debates involved no explicit discussion of the definition of the word 'person' "), but rather whether "there is ... justification for excluding [the entity] from the 'persons' covered by [section 1983]." 436 U.S. at 701, 98 S.Ct. at 2041. With this in mind, we turn our attention to Guam.

B. Guam is an unincorporated territory whose status is governed by the Organic Act of Guam (1950), 48 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1421-1428e (1987). It "enjoy[s] only such powers as may be delegated to it by Congress in the Organic Act...." Sakamoto v. Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd., 764 F.2d 1285, 1286 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081, 106 S.Ct. 1457, 89 L.Ed.2d 715 (1986); see also Leibowitz, The Applicability of Federal Law to Guam, 16 Va.J.Int'l L. 21, 34 (1975) ("Guam has no power to act in the absence of a specific authorization from Congress"). As such, it "is in essence an instrumentality of the federal government," id., much like a federal department or administrative agency. See United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 320-21, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1084-85, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978). Like an agency, it may administer its own affairs; it may draft laws of general applicability, select personnel, exact penalties and even create an entire infrastructure of government. But, also like an agency, its authority to administer itself and to set policy is derived from, and circumscribed by, Congress.

Admittedly, the analogy between Guam and an administrative agency such as the Federal Trade Commission is counterintuitive. Guam seems more like a state or a municipality than a run-of-the-mill federal agency. After all, Guam elects government officials, its citizens participate politically and the territory enjoys many of the trappings of a sovereign governmental entity. See 48 U.S.C. Secs. 1421-1428e. But there are also very significant differences, differences we deem conclusive for purposes of the question presented to us. Guam marches squarely to the beat of the federal drummer; the federal government bestows on Guam its powers and, unlike the states, which retain their sovereignty by virtue of the Constitution, Guam's sovereignty is entirely a creation of federal statute.

In Sakamoto, we considered whether Guam enjoys the same immunity from the antitrust laws as does the federal government. Reasoning that "the government of Guam is an instrumentality of the federal government over which the federal government exercises plenary control" we concluded that "[t]here is no reason why Guam should enjoy less immunity than the federal government itself." 764 F.2d at 1289. While the issue in Sakamoto was immunity from antitrust suit, the principle--that Guam, like the federal government, should not be held liable on the same terms as other entities--is applicable in this context as well.

As a creature of the federal government, Guam stands in sharp contrast to "bodies politic" as that phrase is normally understood. See Leibowitz, 16 Va.J.Int'l L. at 35 ("the government of Guam totally lacks the degree of local autonomy possessed by states or commonwealths within the federal system"). Unlike states, Guam has no sovereign status; it cannot create a system of laws and administration except by leave of Congress and, of course, the Constitution does not accord Guam or any other unincorporated territories independent sovereignty. See, e.g., 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1423i (Congress may annul any act of Guam legislature); compare U.S. Const. amends. X-XI with id. at art. IV, Sec. 3. It is also not like a trust territory whose relationship with the United States government is as a commonwealth or a "free associate," administered by the United States pursuant a trusteeship agreement or covenant. ¹

Because we are bound by Sakamoto...