Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Turpin v. Mailet

Turpin v. Mailet, 591 F.2d 426 (2d Cir. 1979)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1979-01-16
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • direct action against municipality under Fourteenth Amendment not available because municipality is subject to § 1983 liability

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Turpin v. Mailet. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
66 opinions
TURPIN v. MAILET,591 F.2d 426(2nd Cir. 1979)
THOMAS TURPIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH MAILET AND JOHN DOE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS POLICE OFFICERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF
WEST HAVEN, AND CITY OF WEST HAVEN, DEFENDANTS,
AND
CITY OF WEST HAVEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 317, Docket 77-7345. En Banc.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 16, 1979.
Page 427
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, FEINBERG, MANSFIELD, MULLIGAN, OAKES, TIMBERS, GURFEIN, VAN GRAAFEILAND and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
[1] On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider the judgment entered by this Court.City of WestHaven v. Turpin,___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 554, 58 L.Ed.2d ___ (1978),vacating579 F.2d 152(2d Cir. 1978) (en banc). Judgment reinstated to the extent that it reversed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint, and cause remanded to the District Court with instructions to permit plaintiff to proceed under42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PER CURIAM:
[2] InMonell v. Department of Social Services,436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court overruledMonroe v. Pape,365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), and decided that under certain circumstances, local governments are liable under42 U.S.C. § 1983for invasions of constitutional rights. We have been directed to reconsider, in light ofMonell,our prior ruling in this case that municipalities may be sued for damages directly under the 14th Amendment.See___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 554, 58 L.Ed.2d ___ (1978),vacating579 F.2d 152(2d Cir. 1978) (en banc).

[3] TheMonelldecision does not call into questionTurpin'scentral thesis that federal courts have the power — and the obligation — under the general federal question jurisdiction to create remedies to redress constitutional grievances.See579 F.2d at 157-60. An important element in our decision to imply a damages remedy against municipalities under the 14th Amendment, however, was that Congress had not supplied a vehicle by which the right in question could be vindicated.Id.at 157.

[4]Monellheld that § 1983 suits may be brought against municipalities under conditions essentially coextensive with those we imposed on the private right of action inTurpin.We therefore conclude that — under the very rationale of our prior opinion — there is no place for a cause of action against a municipality directly under the 14th Amendment, because the plaintiff may proceed against the City of West Haven under § 1983. Accordingly, we reinstate so much of our decision as reversed the dismissal of the complaint, and remand to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[5] VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge, with whom MULLIGAN, TIMBERS, and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, concur, concurring in result:
[6] Treating the Supreme Court's vacating order as a decision on the merits,see Board of Trustees of Keene State College v.Sweeney,___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 295, 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting), we concur in the majority opinion only so far as it holds that a cause of action may exist against the City of West Haven under42 U.S.C. § 1983.Page 35