Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Robert Edward Lehman v. The City of Pittsburgh

474 F.2d 21

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-02-21
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • Civil Service Commission held not a “person” under the Act
  • Civil Service Commission of Pittsburgh is not a “person”

Citator

Robert Edward Lehman v. The City of Pittsburgh has been questioned or limited by later authorities: relies on overruled authority: 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (overruled by Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.). Read them before relying on it. 11 later decisions cite it.

Authority status
caution
Cited by
11 opinions
LEHMAN v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH,474 F.2d 21(3rd Cir. 1973)
ROBERT EDWARD LEHMAN, APPELLANT, v. THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, ET AL.
No. 72-1949.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs January 19, 1973.
Decided February 21, 1973.
John H. Bingler, Thorp, Reed Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Daniel M. Curtin, Asst. City Sol., Ralph Lynch, Jr., City Sol., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Before VAN DUSEN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges and BARLOW, District Judge.
[1] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
[2] This is an action by Robert E. Lehman against the City of Pittsburgh, the Mayor of Pittsburgh, the Assistant Executive Secretary for Personnel of Pittsburgh, the Civil Service Commission of Pittsburgh, the President and Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission, and a second Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission. The plaintiff, who was born and raised in Pittsburgh and who since May 24, 1971 has again resided in that city, complains that he was deprived of the opportunity to apply for a Civil Service job as a result of Pittsburgh's durational residency ordinance, which requires that applicants for city employment must reside in the city for two years immediately preceding such application. Claiming that this ordinance violates his rights to equal protection of the law and deprives him of privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, plaintiff invoked the districtPage 22court's jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1343and sought both injunctive relief and damages under42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[3] The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint failed to raise a substantial federal question; and (2) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

[4] We affirm that portion of the district court's order dismissing the complaint as to the City of Pittsburgh and the Civil Service Commission of Pittsburgh. Monroe v. Pape,365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), held that a municipality is not a "person" for the purpose of § 1983 suits for damages and is not, therefore, subject to suit. This holding has been extended to bar such suits against city agencies, United States ex rel. Gittlemacker v. County of Philadelphia,413 F.2d 84(3d Cir. 1969);seePierson v. Ray,386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). It has also been applied by this Court to § 1983 suits for injunctive relief. Educational Equality League v. Tate,472 F.2d 612, n. 1 (3d Cir., filed Jan 11, 1973).

[5] As to the individual defendants, we reverse and remand since it is clear that such officials and employees of cities and municipal agencies are "persons" for the purpose of § 1983 suits.E. g.,Pierson v. Ray,386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Monroe v. Pape,supra;Ex Parte Young,209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908); Lewis v. Kugler,446 F.2d 1343(3d Cir. 1971).

[6] On the claim that Pittsburgh's durational residency ordinance denies the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws, the district court, on remand, should consider the applicability ofe. g.,Dunn v. Blumstein,405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson,394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Walker v. Yucht,352 F. Supp. 85(D.Dela., filed Dec. 6, 1972) (3-judge court) (Adams, Circuit Judge); Wellford v. Battaglia,343 F. Supp. 143(D.Dela. 1972) (Stapleton, J.); Krzewinski v. Kugler,338 F. Supp. 492(D.N.J. 1972) (3-judge court)Page 40