Lasa v. Colberg

• Decision Date: 01 October 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 82-0149 (JP).
• Citation: 622 F. Supp. 557
• Parties: Victor LASA, Plaintiff, v. Severo COLBERG and Miguel Hernandez Agosto, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

622 F. Supp. 557

Victor LASA, Plaintiff, v. Severo COLBERG and Miguel Hernandez Agosto, Defendants.

Civ. No. 82-0149 (JP).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

October 1, 1985.

Antonio Córdova, and Rafael Rosario Hernández, San Juan, P.R., for plaintiff.

Marcos A. Ramirez Lavandero, Hato Rey, P.R., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

PIERAS, District Judge.

This action for alleged violation of civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985, is before us on defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and Defendants' Objections to said Report.

The facts alleged in the complaint are as follows:

Plaintiff Victor Lasa was appointed Superintendent of the Capitol Building on August 1, 1978 by the New Progressive Party legislators, pursuant to Law No. 4 of July 21, 1977, 2 L.P.R.A. Secs. 651-661. On January 4, 1982, defendants Severo Colberg and Miguel Hernández Agosto fired Lasa because of his ideological or political affiliation. Lasa claims that defendants Colberg and Hernández, using their respective positions as Speaker of the House and President of the Senate and acting under color of authority and law, have denied and infringed several Constitutional rights guaranteed to plaintiff, namely, his rights to equal protection of the law, due process of law, and political belief and association. Plaintiff requests this Court for injunctive relief and/or damages.

Defendants move for dismissal, alleging: (a) lack of jurisdiction because the complaint fails to present a substantial federal question; (b) failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (c) immunity on the basis of the common law immunity recognized for state legislators.

A. Jurisdiction:

Defendant has alleged lack of jurisdiction for failure to present a "substantial" federal question. This Court takes defendant's allegations as a defense made under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), that is, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. In this case, the plaintiff has adequately alleged a cause of action for violation of constitutional rights. Regardless of the actual validity of said allegations, we find that federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 is sufficiently established for purposes of this lawsuit. See Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 83 S.Ct. 1441, 10 L.Ed.2d 605 (1963).

B. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted:

Defendants also assert a 12(b)(6) defense, alleging failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Insofar as plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985 is concerned, and reading the complaint in plaintiff's favor as a claim brought under subsection (3) of said statute, this Court finds that plaintiff has failed to properly and specifically plead a § 1985(3) cause of action. The complaint does not mention a conspiracy and merely presents the broad allegation that defendant Colberg discharged plaintiff "with the advice and consent of defendant Hernández Agosto". For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102-03, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798-99, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); Serrano Medina v. U.S., 709 F.2d 104, 106 (1st Cir.1983); Fletcher v. Hook, 446 F.2d 14, 15-16 (3d Cir.1971).

As to plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court finds that the complaint adequately constitutes the statement of a claim under the federal rules of pleading. F.R.C.P. 8(a). Furthermore, in the exercise of its discretion under F.R.C.P. 12(b), the Court chooses to exclude matters outside the pleading, thereby abstaining from considering the motion as one for summary judgment. Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2713. This action is taken in light of the forthcoming disposition of the matter under the affirmative defense of legislative immunity.

C. Legislative Immunity:

Defendants assert absolute immunity to plaintiff's suit for damages or injunctive relief under Sec. 1983 under the common law immunity accorded state legislators. The Supreme Court has clearly held that state legislators acting in a legislative capacity are absolutely immune from the imposition of injunctive remedies or civil damages in suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, 732-34, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 1974-76, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980) (immunity from equitable remedies), Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (immunity from civil liability). Furthermore, legislative activities which otherwise are entitled to immunity in a 1983 suit do not lose the absolute protection of that immunity merely because such activities allegedly have violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights, Colón Berríos v. Hernández Agosto, 716 F.2d 85 (1st Cir.1983).

This immunity under Sec. 1983 was recognized to protect the integrity of the legislative process and not for the personal or private benefit of the members. The motive of the clause remains as a shield protecting the legislators from intimidation by other governmental authority, as well as from the time-consuming distractions of defending official legislative acts in Court. See Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 373-78, 71 S.Ct. at 786-89. Such protection allows the legislative function to be performed independently without fear of outside interference. Supreme Court of Virginia, supra, at 731, 100 S.Ct. at 1974.

The Sec. 1983 immunity enjoyed by state legislators, while originating in the common law of legislative immunity, has been placed on a parity with the constitutional immunity granted members of Congress under the Speech and Debate clause, Art. I, Sec. 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The two types of immunity have been compared for purposes of determining the scope of legislative activities subject to their protection. Supreme Court of Virginia, 446 U.S. at 733, 100 S.Ct. at 1975.

As was stated in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, the Speech and Debate clause protects "things generally done in session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it." Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1880) cited with approval in United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 179, 86 S.Ct. 749, 755, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966). In order to effectuate the purposes of the privilege, prior decisions have extended immunity under the Speech and Debate clause to matters beyond pure speech or debate in either House but "only when necessary to prevent indirect impairment of such deliberations," Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2627, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972), citing United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d 753, 760 (1st Cir.1972). That is, the immunity is available only when the legislative act at issue is "an integral part of the deliberative and communicative process by which members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House." Gravel v. United States, supra, at 625, 92 S.Ct. at 2627.

Decisions regarding the scope of § 1983 immunity protecting state legislators have been guided, but not necessarily determined, by the boundaries drawn for immunity under the clause. See Agromayor v. Colberg, 738 F.2d 55 (1st Cir.1984); cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 515, 83 L.Ed.2d 405 (1984). The § 1983 decisions have characterized the legislators' privileged conduct as those acts undertaken "within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity" or within "a field where legislators traditionally have power to act." Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 376, 379, 71 S.Ct. at 788, 789; Supreme Court of Virginia, supra at 732-33, 100 S.Ct. at 1974-75.

It is clear that not everything a legislator may regularly do in his official capacity is necessarily a legislative act qualifying for the immunity protection. In particular, the act of hiring or firing of legislative aides, assistants or staff personnel does not, in every case, receive immunity. The hiring or firing of an employee in a position which is only casually or incidentally related to the legislative process cannot be considered a legislative act entitled to immunity. See, e.g., Walker v. Jones, 733 F.2d 923 (D.C.Cir.1984) (the position of House restaurant manager has no "meaningful input" into the legislative function; thus discharge of this employee is not within protection of the Speech and Debate clause). Protection should be afforded a legislative decision to hire or fire only when the particular position at issue provides sufficient opportunity for meaningful input into the legislative process. Agromayor v. Colberg, supra at 60. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 229, 249-50, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2268, 2279-80, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979).

In this case, an inquiry limited to the statutory definition of plaintiff's post is sufficient to conclude that Mr. Lasa occupied a position which constitutes an integral element of the meaningful input necessary for the performance of defendants' legislative duty and for the general functioning of the legislative process. Title 2, Section 652 of the Laws of Puerto Rico creates the Office of Superintendent of the Capitol. Said provision clearly states in its pertinent part that "the Superintendent shall hold office at the discretion of the Presidents of both Bodies of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, who shall fix the remuneration for the position." This language is unequivocal and must be taken in its plain meaning. Plaintiff, as a politically-appointed employee, holds his position at the discretion of the Presidents of both Bodies of the legislature.

From the statute, it is clear that the Superintendent acts as an advisor and formulates plans for the implementation of broad goals. The statute provides that the Superintendent may seek the...