Roque-Rodriguez v. Lema Moya, ROQUE-RODRIGUE

• Decision Date: 10 January 1991
• Docket Number: ROQUE-RODRIGUE,No. 90-1904,P,90-1904
• Citation: 926 F.2d 103
• Parties: , 65 Ed. Law Rep. 1082 Elizabethlaintiff, Appellee, v. Hon. Jose LEMA MOYA, et al., Defendants, Appellants. . Heard
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 103

926 F.2d 103

18 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1279, 65 Ed. Law Rep. 1082

Elizabeth ROQUE-RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Hon. Jose LEMA MOYA, et al., Defendants, Appellants.

No. 90-1904.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Heard Jan. 10, 1991.

Decided Feb. 27, 1991.

Carlos Lugo Fiol, Asst. Sol. Gen., with whom Jorge E. Perez Diaz, Sol. Gen., and Norma Cotti Cruz, Deputy Sol. Gen., were on brief, San Juan, P.R., for defendants, appellants.

Francisco R. Gonzalez, with whom Jesus Hernandez Sanchez and Hernandez Sanchez Law Firm, San Juan, P.R., were on brief, for plaintiff, appellee.

Before TORRUELLA and SELYA, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK ^*, Senior District Judge.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

This appeal calls upon us to walk a series of tightropes. After having successfully negotiated the hazards of the course, we sustain the interlocutory appeal and set aside the district court's refusal to grant partial summary judgment in defendants' favor.

I

Plaintiff-appellee Elizabeth Roque-Rodriguez (Roque) has taught for many years in the Puerto Rico school system, most recently in the town of Guayama. She is employed by the commonwealth's Department of Education (DOE). Since 1985, Roque has been eligible for promotion to the position of secondary school director. Notwithstanding her eligibility and declared candidacy, she was never interviewed for openings as they arose. She alleges that, during the period from 1985 to early 1989, other candidates with lesser credentials were interviewed and appointed.

A member of the New Progressive Party (NPP), Roque notes that Jose Lema Moya (Lema), head of DOE, Carmen C. Hernandez, Guayama's school superintendent, and Elisamuel Espada Gonzalez (Espada), the director of the school at which Roque taught, were all members of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP); and that, in the 1984 elections, the PDP wrested control of the government from the NPP. Rather than writing off her misfortune in the name of coincidence, Roque attributed what happened to her from 1985 forward as "yet another battle in the drawn-out ["jobs"] war which developed in the aftermath of the November 1984 gubernatorial election in Puerto Rico." See Jusino v. Zayas, 875 F.2d 986, 987 (1st Cir.1989) (listing representative cases). In her view, Lema, Hernandez, and Espada, acting out of political animus, impermissibly deprived her of available promotional opportunities.

By July 1989, plaintiff's patience was exhausted. She brought an action in the federal district court under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against her three superiors, alleging that, on the basis of her political affiliation, the defendants not only denied her a promotion but also harassed her and threatened to bring unwarranted administrative charges. ¹ Postulating that this conduct violated her rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the federal Constitution, Roque demanded both money damages and an injunction.

In due course, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Their motion was denied by the district court without explanation. They then moved to alter or amend the order, to no avail. This appeal followed.

II

Before we set foot on the high wire, we believe it is important to delineate the circumscribed nature of our jurisdiction over this matter. Ordinarily, interlocutory decisions of a federal district court are not immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C Sec. 1291 (1982). There are, however, certain recognized exceptions to the "final judgment" rule. One such exception exists where a state actor, by pretrial motion, has unsuccessfully asserted a substantial claim of qualified immunity. The order denying relief is immediately appealable. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-30, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2814-18, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Domegan v. Fair, 859 F.2d 1059, 1061-62 (1st Cir.1988); Vazquez Rios v. Hernandez Colon, 819 F.2d 319, 320 (1st Cir.1987).

Nevertheless, out of respect for the final judgment rule and the need for orderly management of litigation, "the jurisdiction so conferred is severely restricted." Domegan, 859 F.2d at 1061; see also Cheveras Pacheco v. Rivera Gonzalez, 809 F.2d 125, 127 (1st Cir.1987). "Notwithstanding that we have jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity midstream, '[a]ny additional claim presented to and rejected by the district court must independently satisfy the collateral-order exception to the final-judgment rule in order for us to address it on an interlocutory appeal.' " Domegan, 859 F.2d at 1061-62 (quoting Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 173 (1st Cir.1986)). Hence, interlocutory review of a qualified immunity order does not in and of itself confer jurisdiction over other contested issues in the case. ² It is against this backdrop that we pause to consider exactly what it is that this appeal asks us to review.

Plaintiff's complaint was far from a model of clarity. It was not divided into separate counts but contained a golconda of allegations within a single statement of claim. It amounted to a narrative litany of putative abuses, charging harassment, violations of due process, retaliatory failure to promote, and other wrongs in a largely undifferentiated fashion. Appellants' summary judgment motion was considerably better focussed. It sought brevis disposition on four grounds: (1) qualified immunity, (2) inappropriateness of equitable relief, (3) the complaint's failure to state an actionable conspiracy claim, and (4) eleventh amendment immunity. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (April 18, 1990) at 1-2, reprinted in Record Appendix (R.A.) at 16-17. The qualified immunity prong was tied exclusively to the alleged denial of promotional opportunities; the motion contended that "[d]efendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, because there is no clear established law to promote plaintiff." Id. at 1, R.A. at 16.

The district court denied the motion without explanation. ³ Defendants sought reconsideration solely because of the following claimed "error":

[The district court's] "Order" of August 7, 1990 has denied defendants' motion for summary judgment based, inter alia, on the doctrine of qualified immunity. This is clearly an error of law, since for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity, th[e] court had to determine whether on [sic] 1985, plaintiff had a clearly established right under the First Amendment to be promoted and that the failure to promote her violated this clearly established right.

Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend (August 25, 1990) at 2, reprinted in R.A. at 52. The lower court was unmoved. It denied the second motion, pausing only to inter the related issue of eleventh amendment immunity. ⁴

Because the right to file a Mitchell-type interlocutory appeal extends only to the issue of qualified immunity, and because the movants consistently limited their assertion of the defense in the court below to the promotion claim, we must concentrate at this intermediate stage exclusively upon the isthmian question of whether the buckler of qualified immunity shielded appellants from damage liability for scuttling plaintiff's promotional opportunities.

III

Despite this pruning of the record, a threshold issue remains. Appellee has suggested, by motion to dismiss, that defendants' appeal was not timely, and hence, that we lack jurisdiction to entertain it. Before continuing our peregrinations, we address the jurisdictional challenge.

The record documents the following chronology. The district court's order denying defendants' summary judgment motion was dated August 7, 1990, but was not entered on the docket until August 13. On August 27, defendants served their motion to alter or amend the order. They filed the motion the next day. It was denied on September 10. On September 12, defendants filed a notice of appeal directed to the August 7 order. On September 18, after the district court's September 10 order was docketed, the defendants filed a superseding notice of appeal.

Based on this sequence, the appeal was timely. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) provides that in a civil case to which the federal sovereign is not a party, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the date of entry of the disputed judgment or order. The period so provided is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. See Browder v. Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560-61, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). It can be tolled, however, if a motion to alter or amend the judgment is seasonably filed in the district court under the aegis of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4). A notice of appeal filed within thirty days of the entry of the order disposing of the Rule 59(e) motion will be considered as timely. See id. We think that is the situation here.

The date on which an order is entered on the docket, not the date the order is handed down, marks the commencement of the time periods for filing related motions and appeals. See Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Properties, Inc., 780 F.2d 751, 754 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 100, 93 L.Ed.2d 51 (1986); Yaretsky v. Blum, 592 F.2d 65, 66 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam). Therefore, the clock began to run on August 14 with respect to the trial court's denial of summary judgment. ⁵ Because that denial was immediately appealable insofar as it spurned defendants' claim of qualified immunity, see Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530, 105 S.Ct. at 2817-18, the order became the functional equivalent of a judgment for purposes of appeal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(a) ("any order from which an appeal lies" is considered a judgment). Thus, appellants' motion to alter or amend the order, if timeous, came within the purview of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). ⁶ Cf., e.g., Financial Services Corp. v. Weindruch, 764 F.2d 197, 198-99 (7th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (by virtue of Rule 54(a), order granting preliminary injunction is a "judgment" for purposes of Rule 59(e)).

The next question is whether the Rule 59(e) motion...