Summary
The Eighth Circuit held that private parties who use a state attachment statute act under color of state law and may invoke qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. It concluded that, as of October 25, 1982, South Dakota's prejudgment attachment procedure was clearly unconstitutional because it lacked meaningful judicial supervision and provided inadequate protection against losses from wrongful attachment. The court also rejected reliance on equivocal advice of counsel as an immunity defense for the bank and its vice president, and remanded for further proceedings concerning the attorney's liability.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellees were protected by qualified immunity from § 1983 liability for invoking the South Dakota prejudgment attachment statute.
- Whether Norwest Bank's and Jerry Miller's reliance on advice from attorney Thomas Green insulated them from liability despite the clearly established unconstitutionality of the attachment procedure.
- Whether Green's advice and participation in instituting the attachment constituted action under color of state law.
Holdings
- Private individuals acting jointly with public officials under a state creditor-remedies statute may invoke the same qualified-immunity defense available to public officials.
- The South Dakota attachment procedure under Chapter 21-17 was clearly unconstitutional on October 25, 1982 because, viewed as a whole, it lacked meaningful judicial supervision and adequate indemnification for wrongful attachment, making the potential harm to the debtor far more than slight.
- Norwest Bank and Jerry Miller were not entitled to qualified immunity based on reliance on attorney Green's advice.
- There was a factual question whether Green acted under color of state law by advising Norwest and participating in instituting the attachment proceeding; the issue required remand.
Key quotations
“This procedure clearly was not constitutionally acceptable in 1982 when the attachment in this case occurred.” (830 F.2d at 1494)
“We therefore hold that Norwest, Miller, and Green are not entitled to qualified immunity.” (830 F.2d at 1496)
“It is a factual question to be determined on remand whether Green’s advice to Norwest and institution of the attachment proceeding was “joint participation” with state officials and thus action under color of state law.” (830 F.2d at 1496)
Factual background
Norwest Bank extended Watertown Equipment Company a secured line of credit totaling approximately $488,000, and Edward J. Moe personally guaranteed most of the loans. After the business experienced financial difficulties, Norwest obtained a South Dakota prejudgment attachment writ based on alleged movement or concealment of collateral. The sheriff excluded employees, changed the locks, and secured the business and its equipment; the attachment continued for several months, apparently resulting in the business's closure. The bank's attachment bond was capped at $10,000 even though the attached property was estimated to be worth $275,000 to $300,000.
Procedural history
The appellants filed federal § 1983 and pendent state-law claims after Norwest obtained a South Dakota attachment writ and the sheriff seized and secured the business's property. The district court granted summary judgment to attorney Green, later granted partial summary judgment to Norwest and Miller on the § 1983 claim, and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits of the federal and state claims.
Remand instructions
Remand for consideration of the merits of the federal and state claims, including factual determination whether attorney Green acted under color of state law.