Coleman v. Espy, s. 91-3123
| Citation | 986 F.2d 1184 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 91-3123,91-3384,s. 91-3123 |
| Parties | Dwight COLEMAN, Lester Crowsheart, Sharon Crowsheart, Russel Folmer, Anna Mae Folmer, George Hatfield, June Hatfield, Donna McCabe, Diane McCabe, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Gary A. Barrett, Rosemary K. Barrett, Richard L. Harmon, Betty J. Harmon, Larry L. Robertson, Nancy K. Robertson, Ross Wade, Maureen Wade, Plaintiffs, Bart H. Dye, Appellant, v. Mike ESPY, * Secretary of Agriculture, Charles W. Shuman, Administrator of the Farmers Home Administration, Ralph W. Leet, State Director of the Farmers Home Administration, Harold T. Aasmundstad, District Director of the Farmers Home Administration of North Dakota, Glen W. Binegar, as District Director of the Farmers Home Administration of North Dakota, Allen G. Drege, as District Director of the Farmers Home Administration of North Dakota, Dennis W. Larson, as District Director of the Farmers Home Administration of North Dakota, Odell O. Ottmar, as District Director of the Farmers Home Administration of North Dakota, Joseph J. Schneider, as District Director of the Farmers Home Administration of North Dakota, Samuel Delvo, as County Supervisor of the Farmers Home Administration in North Dakota, Lorace Hakanson, as County Supervisor of the Farmers Home Administration in North Dakota, Larry Leier, as County Supervisor of the Farmers Home Administration in North Dakota, Charles Schaefer, as County Supervisor of the Farmers Home Administration in North Dakota, James Well, as County Supervisor of the Farmers Home Administration in North Dakota, Ralph W. Leet, State Director of the Farmers Home Administration, Appellees. Dwight COLEMAN, Lester Crowsheart, Sharon Crowsheart, Russel Folmer, Anna Mae Folmer, George Hatfield, June Hatfield, Donna McCabe, Diane McCabe, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Gary A. Barrett, Rosemary K. Barrett, Richard L. Harmon, Betty J. Harmon, Larry L. Robertson, Nancy K. Robertson, Ross Wade, Maureen Wade, Plaintiffs, Carl Saine, Judie Saine, Appella |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Michael D. Calhoun, Durham, NC, argued, for appellants.
Michael Robinson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, argued, for appellees.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, ** Senior District Judge.
This case comes to us on appeal from a decision by the district court 1 dismissing as moot an action against officers of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The appellants claim that the FmHA violated a court ordered injunction and they seek civil compensatory contempt damages. We affirm the decision of the district court dismissing these actions, although we do so on different grounds. We hold that these compensatory civil contempt actions are barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
These contempt proceedings arise out of a dispute that has been litigated in this and other federal courts for almost ten years. We provide a brief synopsis of the salient procedural history up to this point.
The three appellants in this case are members of the nationwide plaintiff class of farmers originally recognized in Coleman v. Block, 100 F.R.D. 705 (D.N.D.1983). The plaintiffs of Coleman alleged, principally, that the then existing liquidation and acceleration procedures for farming loans provided by the FmHA violated their constitutional due process rights. The district court issued a nationwide permanent injunction on February 17, 1984. This injunction essentially required the FmHA, among other things, to give a farmer notice of options available through the FmHA loan deferral program before the FmHA could demand "voluntary conveyance" of the farmer's property or deprive the farmer of property in which the FmHA had an interest. Coleman v. Block, 580 F.Supp. 194, 210-11 (D.N.D.1984). 2
On November 1, 1985, the FmHA promulgated new regulations regarding the servicing and foreclosure of loans with the plaintiff class. The Coleman plaintiffs challenged these regulations. The district court rejected some, but not all, of the challenges to these new regulations. Coleman v. Block, 663 F.Supp. 1315 (D.N.D.1987). The parties cross-appealed to this court. During the pendency of this appeal, the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, Pub.L. No. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, was enacted. Because the passage of the Agricultural Credit Act rendered the class action moot, this court ordered the complaint dismissed. Coleman v. Lyng, 864 F.2d 604 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 953, 110 S.Ct. 364, 107 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). The district court dismissed the Coleman case on February 21, 1989.
On October 21, 1985, appellant Bart H. Dye filed, as a separate action, a petition for contempt in the district court. Dye, a farmer from Indiana who had outstanding unpaid loans to the FmHA, alleged that certain FmHA officials had violated the Coleman injunction by failing to give him notice before demanding voluntary conveyance of security property for his loans. The remedy sought was an order of contempt against the FmHA and "compensatory relief in a sum which adequately compensates [him] under the circumstances herein, attorney's fees, cost of this action, and all other relief just and proper in the premises." Bart H. Dye Petition for Contempt and Complaint for Damages at 5. On May 7, 1990, Dye filed a motion for summary judgment.
On February 2, 1990, Carl and Judie Saine, farmers from North Carolina, filed a motion to find certain FmHA officials in contempt. Like Mr. Dye, the Saines contend that, during the time the Coleman injunction was in place, the FmHA demanded voluntary conveyance of their farm and equipment to the FmHA without providing them the required notice under the injunction. The Saines asked the district court to:
(b) Enter an order requiring defendants to: reconvey to plaintiffs all real and personal property now in their possession as a result of the wrongful acts herein alleged; provide further financing and services to plaintiffs as required by the applicable statutes and regulations of the FmHA; and pay to plaintiffs damages in an amount sufficient to compensate plaintiffs for the lost (sic) of income and profits they suffered as a result of defendants' wrongful acts alleged herein and further damages sufficient to compensate plaintiffs for the emotional distress and pain they have suffered as a result of all defendants' wrongful acts.
Motion by Carl and Judie Saine to Find Contempt at 4.
Leonard and Audrey Doran are farmers from Montana. They too contend that they have been damaged by certain FmHA officials' violations of the Coleman injunction. The Dorans claim that the FmHA's failure to give them notice of their FmHA loan restructuring options pursuant to the Coleman injunctions led to the foreclosure on a loan by a private primary lender who held a first mortgage. The Dorans filed a motion for contempt on March 13, 1990, seeking the return of their land, equipment, and supplies, an adjudication that the title to their land was obtained by fraud, and other damages. Motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taydus v. Cisneros, Civ. A. No. 94-10326-RCL.
...Stated otherwise, the United States can be sued only "when it has expressly given its consent to be sued." Coleman v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1184, 1189 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 301, 126 L.Ed.2d 249 (1993). The waiver must be express, clear and unequivocal. Coleman v. Espy, ......
-
Cobell v. Norton
...compensate a party for losses sustained as a result of the government's contumacious violation of an injunction. See Coleman v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1184, 1191-92 (8th Cir.1993). The D.C. Circuit has explicitly noted that whether courts can order such a payment is an open question in this circuit......
- Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, No. 04-12758.
-
Biase v. Kaplan
...capacity because claims against officials in their official capacity would be barred by sovereign immunity); see also Coleman v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1184, 1189 (8th Cir.) (Federal employees sued in their official capacities are protected from suit by sovereign immunity), cert. denied, ___ U.S. _......