Sauls v. Hutto

• Decision Date: 22 July 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 16409.
• Citation: Sauls v. Hutto, 304 F.Supp. 124 (E.D. La. 1969)
• Parties: Ethel Bartlett SAULS, Plaintiff, v. James HUTTO and Frederick C. Ruppert, Jr., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

304 F. Supp. 124

Ethel Bartlett SAULS, Plaintiff, v. James HUTTO and Frederick C. Ruppert, Jr., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 16409.

United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans Division.

July 22, 1969.

August J. Bubert, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.

Beuker F. Amann, New Orleans, La., for defendants.

RUBIN, District Judge:

A police officer who shot and killed a fleeing seventeen-year-old suspected of committing a felony is here sued for damages. The suit raises the question of justification for the use of deadly force in contemporary society.

I. FACTS

On March 21, 1965, at about 10:00 p. m., two police officers, James Hutto and Frederick C. Ruppert, Jr., were operating Patrol Car 54. They drove to an ice cream parlor to investigate a complaint. While they were there, a Mustang automobile was driven recklessly past them at a high rate of speed. They jumped in the patrol car and, with Hutto driving, pursued the Mustang. Hutto turned on the blue police warning light and sounded the siren. But the driver of the Mustang continued to flee, driving through the streets of New Orleans at a high rate of speed. The defendants therefore suspected the speeding car was stolen.

There were four young men in the car. Philip Paul Bartlett, also known as Philip Sauls, was driving. According to the testimony of the three passengers, he had invited them for a ride. They also testified that Bartlett had told them the automobile belonged to his brother. In fact Bartlett had stolen the car by putting a jumper wire on the ignition circuit.

Four pistol shots were fired by Officer Ruppert at the racing car in an effort to bring it to a halt. One shot missed completely; two struck the car but did not penetrate it; and the last shot, which was fired at the car as it careened to its right around a corner on Esplanade Street, penetrated the right front door, ricocheted off the dashboard and fell spent inside the vehicle.

When the passengers heard Ruppert's shots and realized that the police were after them, one of them urged Bartlett to stop. Bartlett, however, said that the car was stolen, and that he could not afford to stop.

Bartlett lost control of the Mustang, and it crashed into a parked car. The police car also stopped, and the two policemen ran up, guns in hand. Three of the juveniles surrendered and Ruppert took them into custody. Bartlett, however, tried to escape, crouching as he ran away. Officer Hutto ran after him. He shot once at the fleeing boy, and his shot struck Bartlett in the back. Because Bartlett was bent over, the bullet went through his body at an angle, penetrated his liver, spleen, stomach and heart, and he fell dead in the street.

Shortly thereafter, Hutto said that he had not intended to kill Bartlett, but being excited, he was not entirely certain what had happened. One of the other occupants of the car was later found to be carrying a weapon. Some also had prior police records. All of them were hardened youths, and all later were convicted and sentenced for theft.

Defendants contend they had probable cause to arrest Bartlett for theft, and they are correct. Bartlett not only drove past them recklessly and wildly at a high rate of speed, but continued to race away when he knew the police were attempting to stop him. The defendants testified that it had been their experience that cars driven in such a manner late at night often are stolen and they suspected theft. Probable cause exists "if the facts and circumstances known to the officer warrant a prudent man in believing that the offense has been committed." Henry v. United States, 1959, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 171, 4 L.Ed.2d 134. Police officers often must make immediate judgments and the circumstances the court must consider "are those of the moment." Dixon v. United States, 1961, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 296 F.2d 427, 428. In suspecting theft in these circumstances the defendants did not act imprudently, and they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for that offense. See Norman v. United States, 1967, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 379 F.2d 164; Heit v. United States, 1967, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 338, 372 F.2d 911.

Suit is brought by the natural mother of the deceased (an illegitimate child) for damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and under Louisiana law, LSA-C.C. Arts. 2315, 2316, under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. The police officers are no longer with the New Orleans police force and are presently unemployed. Therefore, should the plaintiff prevail, there is scant likelihood that any recovery can be effected, but the plaintiff seeks vindication for her son.

II. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

Plaintiff bases her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on two grounds. (1) The defendant police officers violated Louisiana law in shooting her son and thereby deprived him of life without due process of law; (2) regardless of state law, the killing violated substantive due process and was therefore unconstitutional.

"The right to have state law obeyed is not a federal right protected by Section 1983," the Fifth Circuit recently held in Dorsey v. National Association For the Advancement of Colored People, 5 Cir. 1969, 408 F.2d 1022. See also, Snowden v. Hughes, 1944, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497; Charters v. Shaffer, 3 Cir. 1950, 181 F.2d 764, 765; Love v. Navarro, C.D.Cal., 1967, 262 F. Supp. 520. Cf. Otto v. Somers, 6 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 697. Section 1983 protects only federal rights that are violated under color of state law. The Fourteenth Amendment does not import an overriding requirement that state officials obey state laws in every regard. "Mere violation of a state statute does not infringe the federal Constitution. * * * It was not intended by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts that all matters formerly within the exclusive cognizance of the states should become matters of national concern." Snowden v. Hughes, supra at 11 of 321 U.S., at 402 of 64 S.Ct. If this were not so, virtually any suit for a tort committed by any state employee could be brought in federal court.

The second basis for plaintiff's claim under Section 1983 is in effect that any time a person is killed by a law enforcement officer merely to protect property, he has been deprived of his life without due process of law, and, consequently, his federal constitutional rights have been violated. Since plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for her son's death under state law, determination of her federal constitutional claim is pretermitted because it would afford her no additional relief. In Justice Peckham's words:

"Where a case in this court can be decided without reference to questions arising under the Federal Constitution, that course is usually pursued and is not departed from without important reasons. In this case we think it much better to decide it with regard to the question of a local nature, involving the construction of the state statute * * * rather than to unnecessarily decide the * * * constitutional question appearing in the record." Siler v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co., 1909, 213 U.S. 175, 29 S.Ct. 451, 53 L.Ed. 753.

III. PENDENT JURISDICTION

The court would lack jurisdiction of the plaintiff's claim for violation of state law were that claim brought alone. But "pendent jurisdiction, in the sense of judicial power, exists whenever there is a claim `arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority * * *,' U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2, and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional `case.'" United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 1966, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218. The Court there set forth the principles for application of the doctrine:

"The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court. cases cited The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. But if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff's claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole."¹ (Citations and footnotes omitted.)

In this case, the plaintiff's claims, both state and federal, have not only arisen "from a common nucleus of operative fact," but, as in Hurn v. Oursler,² spring from "identical facts" — the killing of her son.

Furthermore, plaintiff's federal claim clearly has "substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court." In contending that her son's life was taken under color of state law in violation of his constitutional rights, she has presented the court with serious constitutional questions.³ On the pleadings, she stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on wanton police brutality; the facts do not support these charges, but this could not be determined until the trial was concluded.⁴

When, as in this case, there is both a substantial federal question and a common nucleus of operative fact between the federal and state claims, the court has the power to invoke pendent jurisdiction to resolve the state claim, even if it should decide the federal claim adversely to the plaintiff or, as here, "even if it omits to decide them at all but decides the case on local or state questions only." Siler v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, 1909, 213 U.S. 175, 29 S.Ct. 451, 53 L.Ed. 753; Hurn v. Oursler, 1933, 289 U.S. 238, 243, 53 S.Ct. 586, 77 L.Ed. 1148.

However, as the Court pointed out in Gibbs:

"That power to invoke pendent jurisdiction need not be exercised in every case in which it is found to exist. It has consistently been recognized that pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's

...