Carringer v. Rodgers, 01-15258.

• Decision Date: 23 May 2003
• Docket Number: No. 01-15258.,01-15258.
• Citation: 331 F.3d 844
• Parties: Deborah CARRINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley RODGERS, City of Barnesville, Ethel Tessmer, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

331 F.3d 844

Deborah CARRINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley RODGERS, City of Barnesville, Ethel Tessmer, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-15258.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 23, 2003.

Ralph Goldberg, Decatur, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James R. Westbury, Jr., Mullins, Whalen & Westbury, Griffin, GA, Sandra J. Popson, Katz, Flatau, Popson & Boyer, Macon, GA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Before ANDERSON, HULL and KENNEDY,^* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After the death of her son, Plaintiff Deborah Carringer filed suit against defendants Police Chief Stanley Rodgers and the City of Barnesville under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Carringer also brought state law claims for the wrongful death of her son and for funeral expenses against Officer Ethel Tessmer, Chief Rodgers, and the City. The district court dismissed Carringer's state law claims against all three defendants, and granted summary judgment to Chief Rodgers and the City on her § 1983 claims, based on the conclusion that she did not have standing to assert any of her claims.

After review, oral argument, and certifying a question to the Georgia Supreme Court, we vacate the district court's dismissal of Carringer's state law claims against all three defendants. We also vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants Chief Rogers and the City on Carringer's § 1983 claims.

I. BACKGROUND

Carringer's son, David Newton, married Ethel Tessmer, a police captain for the City of Barnesville, in September 1997. After Officer Tessmer attempted suicide in November 1997, the City's Chief of Police, defendant Stanley Rodgers, ordered Officer Tessmer to remove all weapons from her home. Chief Rodgers did not, however, relieve Officer Tessmer of her duties. Therefore, Officer Tessmer was permitted to carry her service revolver. In January 1998, less than four months after they were married, Officer Tessmer shot and killed her husband Newton with her service revolver.

In January 2000, Carringer, as Newton's mother, filed a § 1983 action against Chief Rodgers and the City. Carringer also filed state law claims for the wrongful death of her son and funeral expenses against Officer Tessmer, Chief Rodgers, and the City.

The district court strictly construed Georgia's wrongful death statutes and concluded that Carringer had no standing to bring either a wrongful death action or a claim for funeral expenses under Georgia law. Following the district court's dismissal of Carringer's claims for wrongful death and funeral expenses, Chief Rodgers and the City filed a motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claims. The district court concluded that "[b]oth Georgia case law and federal case law make clear that civil torts that might have been brought by an individual immediately prior to his death, can only be brought by the administrator of his estate after his death." Because Carringer was not her son's administratrix, the district court concluded that Carringer did not have standing to bring her § 1983 action against Chief Rodgers and the City. Carringer appealed.

In Carringer v. Rodgers, 293 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir.2002), this Court considered the scope of Georgia's wrongful death statutes, see O.C.G.A. §§ 51-4-1 to 51-4-2, 51-4-4 to 51-4-5 (2000) and 19-7-1 (Supp. 2002),¹ and whether Carringer, as a parent, had standing to sue for the wrongful death of her son. After our review of this state law issue, we concluded that "[t]here [was] unsettled tension as to the application of the Georgia wrongful death statutes that prevent[ed] us from being able to determine the proper application of those statutes in this case." Id. at 1305. Thus, we certified the following question to the Georgia Supreme Court:

UNDER GEORGIA LAW, DOES THE PARENT OF A DECEDENT CHILD WHO WAS MURDERED BY HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE HAVE A WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST EITHER THE SPOUSE-MURDERER AND/OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY WHO WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH? IF SO, FOR WHAT DAMAGES? (I.E. FULL VALUE OF THE LIFE OF THE DECEDENT? FUNERAL EXPENSES? ANY OTHER DAMAGES?)

Id. at 1305.

The Georgia Supreme Court responded as follows:

The legislature intends that there always be a right of recovery in the case of the homicide of a child, and because Tessmer [the spouse-murderer] is precluded from this right of recovery, the parent Carringer has standing to bring a cause of action for the wrongful death of her son in order to recover for the full value of his life.

Carringer v. Rodgers, 578 S.E.2d 841, 845-46 (Ga.2003). The Georgia Supreme Court also stated that Carringer, under O.C.G.A. § 19-7-1, may recover funeral expenses under state law. See id., at 845 n. 6. Having received a definitive statement of Georgia law from the Georgia Supreme Court, we now address the district court's original decision dismissing Carringer's state law claims for the wrongful death of her son and funeral expenses. We then discuss the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants Chief Rodgers and the City on Carringer's § 1983 claims.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Wrongful Death Action under Georgia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court has concluded that because the spouse-murderer is precluded from recovery, Carringer, as a parent, has standing to assert both claims for the wrongful death of her son and for funeral expenses. See id., 578 S.E.2d at 845-46 & n. 6. We are bound by the Georgia Supreme Court's determination of state law. See Silverstein v. Gwinnett Hosp. Auth., 861 F.2d 1560, 1569 (11th Cir.1988) ("It is well settled that federal courts are bound by the interpretation of a state [law] by state courts."). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order dismissing Carringer's state law claims against all three defendants.

B. Section 1983

Although Carringer can assert her state law claims, we still must address her right to bring a § 1983 action against Chief Rodgers and the City for the wrongful death of her son.² In resolving this issue, we must answer these two questions: (1) whether a decedent's § 1983 claim terminates upon his death; and (2) if not, where do we look to determine who may bring a § 1983 claim for the wrongful death of the decedent whose constitutional rights were violated. These questions were answered by binding precedent in Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401 (5th Cir.1961).³

In Brazier, a widow in Georgia sued police officers for beating her husband to death in violation of his constitutional rights. Id. at 402. The plaintiff widow asserted her federal claims: (1) as the surviving wife individually for the wrongful death of her husband; and (2) as administratrix of the decedent's estate. Id. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's § 1983 claims, concluding that the claims for violations of the decedent's constitutional rights terminated upon his death. Reversing, this Court concluded that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 incorporated both Georgia's wrongful death statute and Georgia's survival statute in order to provide full remedies for the violations of the decedent's constitutional rights under § 1983. Id. at 409.⁴

The Brazier Court first considered the issue of recovery under § 1983 when death occurs, and framed the issue as: "whether death resulting from violation of the Civil Rights Statutes gives rise to a federally enforceable claim for damages sustained by the victim during his lifetime, by his survivors, or both." Id. at 402. Recognizing that the civil rights statutes "d[id] not expressly refer to actions for death or the survival of claims arising from civil rights violations," this Court determined, in contravention of the common law rule, that the decedent's constitutional claims did not terminate upon his death. Id. at 403-04. The Brazier Court further concluded that, unless the decedent's cause of action survived his death, the remedies provided by § 1983 would fail when the injury is death. The Brazier Court reasoned that "it defies history to conclude that Congress purposely meant to assure to the living freedom from such unconstitutional deprivations, but that, with like precision, it meant to withdraw the protection of civil rights statutes against the peril of death." Id. at 404.

After concluding that the decedent's claims did not terminate upon his death, the Brazier Court determined that there remained a "gap" between "the civil rights legislation ... and the tolerant, hospitable construction to ameliorate the hardships of the common law rule." Id. at 407. To fill the gap left by federal law, the Brazier Court concluded that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 required courts to look to state law. Id. The Brazier Court then found that the statutory machinery in Georgia law gave effective redress of constitutional claims after death under § 1983. Id. at 409. In addition to deciding that state law should be used, the Brazier Court explained how the law of Georgia filled the gap left by federal law in § 1983 claims where death resulted from constitutional violations. See id. at 409.

At the time of Brazier, Georgia had two statutes that pertained to the survival of a tort claim after death — a survival statute and a wrongful death statute. Id. at 407 n. 15.⁵ In reversing the district court's dismissal of both the widow's individual claims and her claims as the decedent's administratrix, the Brazier Court stated, "[s]ince Georgia now provides both for survival of the claim which the decedent had for damages sustained during his lifetime as well as a right of recovery to his surviving widow and others for homicide ... we need not differentiate between the two types of actions." Id. at 409 (emphasis added). The Brazier Court reasoned that "[t]o make the policy of the Civil Rights Statutes fully effectual, regard has to be taken of both classes of victims." Id. (emphasis added). In stating that the suit could be brought in Georgia by both the individual entitled to bring...