Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167

United States Supreme Court

1961

Chapter

19

Title

Civil Rights

Page

787

Topic

Section 1983

Quick Notes

1983 imposed liability on both the individual officer and against the City. 

Book Name

Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises.  Weaver, Third Edition.  ISBN:  978-1-4224-7220-0.

Issue

o         Whether Congress, in enacting 1983, meant to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges and immunities by an officials abuse of his position?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         District Court Dismissed Complaint

Appellant

o         Court of Appeals Affirmed

Supreme

o         Reversed - complaint should not have been dismissed against the officials.

Facts

Reasoning

Rules

Pl Monroe

Df Pape

What happened?

o         The complaint alleges that 13 Chicago police officers broke into Monroes home in the early morning, routed them from bed, made them stand naked in the living room, and ransacked every room, emptying drawers and ripping mattress covers.

o         It further alleges that Mr. Monroe was then taken to the police station and detained on "open" charges for 10 hours, while he was interrogated about a two-day-old murder,

o         He was not taken before a magistrate, though one was accessible,

o         He was not permitted to call his family or attorney.

o         He was subsequently released without criminal charges being preferred against him.

o         It is alleged that the officers had no search warrant and no arrest warrant and that they acted "under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages" of Illinois and of the City of Chicago.

City Of Chicago Motion To Dismiss

All Defendants Motion to Dismiss

District Court Dismissed Complaint

Court of Appeals Affirmed.

42 U.S.C 1983

o         Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Defendants Argument under color of

o         It is argued that "under color of" enumerated state authority excludes acts of an official or policeman who can show no authority under state law, state custom, or state usage to do what he did.

In This Case

o         The policeman violated the Constitution and laws of Illinois.

o         Illinois Courts are available to give petitions that full redress.

Three Aims of 1983

1.   First, it might, of course, override certain kinds of state laws.

2.   Second, it provided a remedy where state law was inadequate.

3.   The third aim was to provide a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice.

Federal Remedy Supplement

o         The federal remedy is supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the federal one is invoked.

o         Hence the fact that Illinois by its constitution and laws outlaws unreasonable searches and seizures is no barrier to the present suit in the federal court.

United States v. Classic

o         Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law.

Screws v. United States

o         It was argued there, as it is here, that "under color of" state law included only action taken by officials pursuant to state law.

o         S.Ct Reject that view.

42 U.S.C.S. 1983 should be read against the background of tort liability that makes a man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions.

Supreme Court Conclusion

o         The response of the Congress to the proposal to make municipalities liable for certain actions being brought within federal purview by the Act of April 20, 1871, was so antagonistic that we cannot believe that the word "person" was used in this particular Act to include them.

o         Accordingly we hold that the motion to dismiss the complaint against the City of Chicago was properly granted.

o         But since the complaint should not have been dismissed against the officials the judgment must be and is

Reversed.

DISSENT

o         Whether the intrusion of a city policeman for which that policeman can show no such authority at state law as could be successfully interposed in defense to a state-law action against him, is nonetheless to be regarded as "under color" of state authority within the meaning of 1983.

o         The jurisdiction which Article III of the Constitution conferred on the national judiciary reflected the assumption that the state courts, not the federal courts, would remain the primary guardians of that fundamental security of person and property which the long evolution of the common law had secured to one individual as against other individuals.

Rules

42 U.S.C 1983

o         Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Three Aims of 1983

1.       First, it might, of course, override certain kinds of state laws.

2.       Second, it provided a remedy where state law was inadequate.

3.       The third aim was to provide a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice.

Class Notes