Hankins v. Finnel

• Decision Date: 28 January 1991
• Docket Number: No. 88-4094-CV-C-5.,88-4094-CV-C-5.
• Citation: 759 F. Supp. 569
• Parties: Ronald HANKINS, Plaintiff, v. William FINNEL, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

759 F. Supp. 569

Ronald HANKINS, Plaintiff, v. William FINNEL, Defendant.

No. 88-4094-CV-C-5.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, C.D.

January 28, 1991.

Teresa Schuele, Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Robert L. Presson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for defendant.

ORDER

SCOTT O. WRIGHT, District Judge.

Now before the Court are motions by both parties in this action which previously was tried before a jury on August 8 and 9, 1989. A judgment against Defendant William Finnel was entered on August 9, 1989 and was subsequently affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiff Ronald Hankins has filed a motion for a writ of mandamus to stay state court proceedings and a motion for proceedings in aid of execution of the judgment entered by this Court. In response, Defendant Finnel has moved to strike plaintiff's motions and has filed opposition to both motions. A state court judge stayed the state proceedings, making the first of plaintiff's motions moot.

The present motions manifest a conflict between the purpose of Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code and the purpose of the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act. Based upon the following analysis, the Court concludes that in the particular circumstances of this case plaintiff's motion for proceedings in aid of execution should be granted and defendant's motion should be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 8, 1989, a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in this action for his claims under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1981). Plaintiff Hankins alleged that Defendant Finnel sexually harassed him from 1984 to 1988 while plaintiff was an inmate in the Missouri State Penitentiary and defendant was a teacher in that institution. The jury awarded plaintiff one dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages and three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) in punitive damages. Defendant Finnel, represented by the Attorney General's office and indemnified by the State of Missouri, appealed the verdict. The Eighth Circuit, on June 29, 1990, affirmed the judgment and verdict.

On July 31, 1990, the State of Missouri instituted ex parte proceedings in state court against Mr. Hankins, seeking reimbursement for the cost of his incarceration as provided under the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act, Mo.Ann.Stat. §§ 217.825-217.842 (West Supp.1991). The State sought reimbursement equal to ninety percent (90%) of the amount plaintiff received as judgment from the State which indemnified Defendant Finnel. The Missouri Act authorizes forfeiture of 90% of an inmate's assets for reimbursement. Mo.Ann.Stat. § 217.833. On Friday, August 17, 1990, the state court granted the State of Missouri's request to appoint a receiver selected by the State of Missouri to hold Mr. Hankins' funds. The Court further ordered Mr. Hankins to show cause why it should not enter an order appropriating and applying his assets toward reimbursement of the cost of his confinement. The state court judge subsequently stayed the state court proceedings pending the outcome of this federal proceeding.

Mr. Hankins' inmate account statement reveals that on Monday, August 20, 1990, the State first debited his account $3,234.22 for "Cell Reimbursement," and later on the same day deposited $3,234.22 into his over-drawn account.

Upon learning of the state court proceedings, Plaintiff Hankins filed the motions presently before this Court.

II. ANALYSIS

This case requires a two-step analysis. First, the Court must examine its authority to enforce its judgment. Based on the following reasoning, the Court determines that it retains jurisdiction over this proceeding to enforce its judgment, pursuant to Rule 69. The Court's enforcement of this Section 1983 judgment exposes a conflict with the State's authority to obtain reimbursement for incarceration costs under the Missouri law. Because of this conflict, the Court must also assess the issue of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause.

A. Enforcement of Judgment

In order to effectuate its judicial power, a federal court has authority to enforce its judgment and to conduct proceedings to aid execution of its judgment through a writ of execution. Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a). Where no federal law governs the enforcement of a given judgment, the law of the forum state applies. Id.; United States ex rel. Goldman v. Meredith, 596 F.2d 1353 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 838, 100 S.Ct. 76, 62 L.Ed.2d 50 (1979).

1. Missouri Law to Enforce Judgment

Section 1983 provides no mechanism for enforcement of a judgment, so the Court must incorporate Missouri state law. See United States v. Hackett, 123 F.Supp. 106, 107 (W.D.Mo.1954) (applying state law to enforce judgment). According to Missouri law, "a writ of prohibition shall be granted to prevent usurpation of judicial power." Mo.Ann.Stat. § 530.010 (1953). Courts are empowered to conduct proceedings in prohibition and "to direct the form of such further details of procedure as may be necessary to the orderly course of the case, or to give effect to said remedy, in accordance with the general principles of law upon the subject." Id. at § 530.090.

Mr. Finnel, who is represented by the State, argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the State of Missouri because it is a nonparty to this action. Defendant maintains that the Court lacks jurisdiction over what he describes as a federal claim raised as a defense to a separate state court action for reimbursement.

This Court rejects defendant's arguments. This is a proceeding to enforce the judgment in the above-titled action. The Court obtains jurisdiction over the State of Missouri based upon the State's consent to satisfy the judgment against Mr. Finnel.

The Seventh Circuit has held that, under Rule 69(a) and the applicable state law, a district court may retain jurisdiction to conduct ancillary proceedings against nonparties which have an obligation to indemnify the individual held liable in a Section 1983 action. Argento v. Village of Melrose Park, 838 F.2d 1483, 1487-88 (7th Cir. 1988). Like Mr. Finnel, the defendant in Argento argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over a separate proceeding involving a nonparty to the original civil rights action. Id. at 1487. The Argento court refused to draw a party/nonparty distinction. Instead, the Court found it had jurisdiction over an ancillary indemnification claim in order to enforce the Section 1983 judgment. Id. at 1488-89 (citing similar decisions from other circuits in support). See also Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 273 F.Supp. 1 (E.D.Mo.1967), aff'd sub nom., Osbourne v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 389 U.S. 579, 88 S.Ct. 692, 19 L.Ed.2d 779 (1968) (federal court has authority to issue orders effectuating its original judgment against a nonparty under 28 U.S.C. § 1651).

2. Ancillary Jurisdiction Under Rule 69(a) and the Issue of State Sovereignty

This Court concludes that it has ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the civil rights judgment against Mr. Finnel, pursuant to Rule 69(a) and Missouri law. The Court acknowledges that the supplementary proceedings necessarily involve a nonparty to the original action, the State of Missouri.

Defendant argues that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars enforcement of the judgment as it pertains to the State. However, as this Court sees it, the State has waived its immunity as it pertains to the judgment in this case. The State of Missouri has voluntarily agreed to indemnify its state employee Mr. Finnel and, in fact, claims it has paid the judgment in this case. See Mo.Ann.Stat. § 105.711 (West Supp. 1991) (State Legal Expense Fund). This Court has jurisdiction over the State only insofar as necessary to enforce its judgment, the judgment the State voluntarily agreed to indemnify.

A state's immunity under the Eleventh Amendment is strictly construed. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3146, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). Waiver of a state's sovereign immunity can arise in only circumstances: (1) where Congress expressly abrogates state immunity; (2) where the state expressly or "by such overwhelming implication from the text" waives its immunity or consents to suit in federal court. Id. (quoting Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1361, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)). A general waiver is not enough to abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id., 473 U.S. at 246, 105 S.Ct. at 3149, 87 L.Ed.2d 171. See also Welch v. Texas Dept of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 475-88, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 2946-54, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (reviewing rationale behind Eleventh Amendment immunity).

This case focuses on the State of Missouri's affirmative conduct to satisfy the federal court judgment entered against Defendant Finnel. This is not a general waiver. The State has voluntarily and specifically agreed to indemnify a state employee for a federal court judgment. The State misrepresents that it has satisfied this judgment when, in fact, Mr. Hankins never received the judgment due to the State's bookkeeping maneuvers. The State cannot now refuse to fulfill that obligation by hiding behind the Eleventh Amendment and the fiction of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). Under the "fiction" of Ex parte Young, a party can enforce constitutional state conduct by suing a state official, but not the state. Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4231 (2d ed. 1988).

This Court finds that the State of Missouri has waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it has voluntarily accepted the obligation of the civil rights judgment against Defendant Finnel. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant Finnel and over the State of Missouri to the extent it has chosen to act in his stead. The source of this Court's federal jurisdiction is its authority to enforce its judgment under Rule 69(a) and its authority to protect p...