Garcia v. State, 1

• Decision Date: 05 April 1988
• Docket Number: CA-CIV,No. 1,1
• Citation: 159 Ariz. 487,768 P.2d 649
• Parties: Inger GARCIA, surviving parent and personal representative of the Estate of Patrict J. Sedivy, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona, a body politic; James G. Ricketts and Jane Doe Ricketts, husband and wife; Donald B. Wawrzaszek and Jane Doe Wawrzaszek, husband and wife; Alfred Grijalva and Jane Doe Grijalva, husband and wife, Defendants- Appellees. 9416.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 649

768 P.2d 649

159 Ariz. 487

Inger GARCIA, surviving parent and personal representative of the Estate of Patrict J. Sedivy, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona, a body politic; James G. Ricketts and Jane Doe Ricketts, husband and wife; Donald B. Wawrzaszek and Jane Doe Wawrzaszek, husband and wife; Alfred Grijalva and Jane Doe Grijalva, husband and wife, Defendants- Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CIV 9416.

Court of Appeals of Arizona,

Division 1, Department D.

April 5, 1988.

Review Dismissed March 16, 1989.

[159 Ariz. 488] Haralson, Kinerk & Morey, P.C. by Dale Haralson, Denneen L. Peterson, Gregory G. Walsey, Tucson, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by James R. Rummage, Judith Abramsohn, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for defendants-appellees.

OPINION

CONTRERAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court's order dismissing Count II of appellant's complaint in favor of appellee (State of Arizona). Count II was a claim for violation of civil rights brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ¹ Section 1983 authorizes the maintenance of a legal action against every "person" who, under color of law, deprives another of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and federal laws. In its motion to dismiss, the state argued that it could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it is not a "person" within the meaning of that federal statute. The trial court granted the state's motion on the basis that in St. Mary's Hospital and Health Center v. State, 150 Ariz. 8, 11, 721 P.2d 666, 669 (App.1986) Division Two of this court held that a state is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. We find ourselves in agreement with Division Two's conclusion and hold that a state is not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Appellant, Inger Garcia, as the surviving parent and personal representative of the estate of Patrick J. Sedivy, filed a civil action seeking damages for the wrongful death of her son. She named the State of Arizona and various officials or employees of the Arizona State Prison and their wives as defendants, and alleged the following in her complaint: (1) Patrick J. Sedivy was incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison in Florence, Arizona beginning in 1981; (2) after his incarceration, Sedivy began to exhibit extreme psychotic behavior, including unsuccessful suicide attempts; (3) the defendants failed or refused (a) to provide medical treatment for Sedivy's mental illness, (b) to adequately supervise him, (c) to formulate and implement adequate standards for the care and treatment of prisoners, and (d) to protect him from assailants during his incarceration; and (4) as a result, Sedivy either set himself on fire or was set on fire by an unknown person at the prison on August 28, 1984, and, on August 29, 1984, died from the injuries he sustained.

Appellant's complaint listed two distinct and separate causes of action against the various defendants. Count I was a claim for common-law negligence. Count II was a claim for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for which attorney's fees are authorized to a successful litigant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In this appeal, we are faced with and address only the propriety of the trial court's order dismissing Count II as against appellee State of Arizona on the basis that a state is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.

Appellant contends that the St. Mary's decision, relied on by the trial court, in turn relied on authorities that either do not support the proposition or are of questionable validity. She points out that Challenge, Inc. v. State ex rel. Corbin, 138 Ariz. 200, 673 P.2d 944 (App.1983), a case decided by this division prior to the St. Mary's decision and cited in St. Mary's, discussed whether a state is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but left that issue undecided. In Challenge we noted that the parties were in disagreement whether the United States Supreme Court in Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) had held that a state is not a "person" under § 1983 or had merely held that § 1983 does not abrogate a state's eleventh amendment immunity from suits in federal courts. In Challenge we acknowledge that the Supreme Court has not resolved how Quern should be interpreted and that there is respectable supporting authority on both sides. Because another issue in Challenge was dispositive, we then expressly declined to resolve the issue of whether the state was a "person" under § 1983, referring to it as a "knotty question of federal law." Challenge, 138 Ariz. at 202-03, 673 P.2d at 947.

We are unable to determine whether Division Two was presented with the full range of arguments on this issue when it held in St. Mary's that the state is not a "person" under § 1983. The rationale for reaching this conclusion is not stated in the opinion. Instead, the court cited Challenge and Quern, supra to support its holding. For these reasons we find it appropriate at this time to discuss and scrutinize the divergent lines of authority on this issue to determine which is the better reasoned.

The issue of whether a state or any of its agencies is a "person" within the meaning of § 1983 has been debated extensively in both state and federal courts. This issue has spawned divergent opinions in the courts because the United States Supreme Court has never expressly ruled on it, but instead has ruled on related issues. In doing so, the Supreme Court has included language in its opinions that other courts have interpreted in different ways to reach differing results on the issue of whether the state is a "person" within § 1983. The two major United States Supreme Court cases that other courts have focused upon in reaching their determinations of this issue are Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) and Quern, supra.

In Monell, the Court was asked by petitioners to find that the City of New York and its agencies were subject to suit in federal court under § 1983. The eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution, which grants states immunity from suits brought in federal courts by their own citizens and citizens of other states, ² presented no barrier to suit since it was already well established that local governmental units do not occupy the same position as the states for purposes of the eleventh amendment. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). The obstacle to suit was whether the city and its agencies constitute "persons" within the meaning of § 1983. The Supreme Court had previously ruled in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 484, 5 L.Ed.2d 492, 505 (1961) that "Congress did not undertake to bring municipal corporations within the ambit of [§ 1983]." In Monell, however, after extensively analyzing the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, from which § 1983 was derived, the Court, in an opinion written by Justice Brennan, concluded that Congress did intend municipalities and other local governmental units to be included among the "persons" to whom § 1983 applies and overruled that portion of Monroe v. Pape, that held to the contrary.

The Monell Court expressly stated in a footnote to the opinion that its holding was "limited to local government units which are not considered part of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes." Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, n. 54, 98 S.Ct. at 2035, n. 54, 56 L.Ed.2d at 635, n. 54. Even so, some courts, reasoning that it would be inconsistent to regard municipalities and states as different under § 1983, have held that states are "persons" based on Monell and therefore are subject to suit except to the extent of their eleventh amendment immunity. See, e.g., Atchison v. Nelson, 460 F.Supp. 1102, 1107 (D.Wyo.1978). Other courts have held that states are not "persons" under § 1983 based on the fact that Monell restricted its holding to municipalities. See, e.g., Clark v. Michigan, 498 F.Supp. 159, 161 (E.D.Mich.1980).

The Supreme Court's decision in Quern, handed down the year after Monell, added more fuel to the already flaming debate over whether Congress intended states to be "persons" amenable to suit under § 1983. Quern was a sequel to the case of Edelman v. Jordan, supra. The Edelman case had been a class action brought pursuant to § 1983 against state officials who were administering joint federal-state programs of aid. The district court had not only granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the class, but also had made a retroactive award of benefits requiring payment of funds from the state treasury. The court of appeals had affirmed the district court's judgment in Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir.1973). The Supreme Court found the award of prospective relief to be appropriate pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), in which the Supreme Court held that the eleventh amendment does not bar an action in the federal courts brought to enjoin a state official from enforcing a statute claiming to violate the United States Constitution. Edelman, 415 U.S. at 663-64, 94 S.Ct. at 1356, 39 L.Ed.2d at 673. However, the court struck down the retroactive award as being in violation of the eleventh amendment, holding:

But it has not heretofore been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the...