Bieluch v. Sullivan, 1368

Decision Date27 July 1993
Docket NumberNo. 1368,D,1368
Citation999 F.2d 666
PartiesJoseph H. BIELUCH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernard SULLIVAN, Commissioner of Public Safety, I/O, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 92-9314.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Jon L. Schoenhorn, Hartford, CT, for plaintiff-appellant.

Margaret Quilter Chapple, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State of Conn. (Richard Blumenthal, Atty. Gen.; Michael J. Lanoue, Asst. Atty. Gen.), for defendant-appellee.

Before: PRATT and JACOBS, Circuit Judges, and Whitman KNAPP, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Joseph H. Bieluch, Jr., appeals from a summary judgment granted by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Alan H. Nevas, Judge, holding that qualified immunity protected defendant Bernard Sullivan from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for summarily transferring Bieluch from his position as resident trooper. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND

Bieluch joined the Connecticut police force in 1967. In 1973, he became one of two "resident troopers" for the Town of New Hartford, Connecticut. Connecticut's resident trooper program is designed to provide community-based policing for towns lacking an organized police force. A resident trooper is functionally equivalent to a chief of police and is a highly desired, prestigious position. As a resident trooper, Bieluch had flexible hours and diverse duties, received an additional stipend of $100 per month, and was under less supervision than regular "road troopers". His duties included performing educational activities in the town; supervising the town constables; and assisting the town's First Selectman in preparing a local public-safety budget, reviewing public-safety ordinances, and monitoring housing-code violations. Bieluch was a New Hartford resident trooper for seventeen years; his summary transfer in 1990 precipitated this lawsuit.

In 1980 Bieluch and his family moved to New Hartford, because he wanted to live in the same town where he worked. As a private citizen, he became active in community affairs. He was elected to New Hartford's Board of Finance, but after the State Ethics Commission issued an advisory opinion stating that his position on the board created a conflict of interest under state laws, he resigned from the board in March 1990. That same month he was elected president of the New Hartford Business and Property Owners' Association, an organization dedicated to overturning a referendum that had approved the construction of a new school. Bieluch was publicly identified on some of the association's written communications as the president and was quoted in local newspapers as a member of the association.

The association circulated petitions calling for the town's Board of Selectmen to rescind their votes authorizing construction of a new school. The board refused to act on the petition, which prompted the association to file a lawsuit against the town and its selectmen. Bieluch was a named plaintiff in the suit, and First Selectman Reginald J. Smith, Jr., was a named defendant. The suit was settled after the town agreed to schedule a referendum to reconsider the issue. The second referendum rescinded the previous approval for the construction of a new school. Its mission accomplished, the association dissolved.

A new organization, the New Hartford Property Owners' Association, formed in May 1990 and elected Bieluch as its president. The organization effectively campaigned against several town budgets proposed by New Hartford's Board of Finance by supporting petitions to force referenda on proposed budgets. At times, the association distributed flyers or mailings to New Hartford residents. Bieluch also personally appeared at town budget meetings and expressed his views. When the fiscal year began on July 1, 1990, the town did not have a budget in place.

Bernard Sullivan was appointed to the position of Connecticut's Commissioner of Public Safety in November 1989. The Commissioner of Public Safety supervises the resident troopers. Conn.Gen.Stat. § 29-5. On or about July 2, 1990, Sullivan received a letter signed by nine New Hartford residents that expressed concern over Bieluch's political activities. Reginald Smith was one of the signatories, but he had signed the letter as a private citizen, without indicating his position as First Selectman.

The letter to Commissioner Sullivan criticized the tactics employed by both of the organizations of which Bieluch had been president. It said that Bieluch had "placed himself at the center of an extremely divisive, ongoing, political controversy", which was "totally inappropriate for a resident state trooper". As examples of his "unethical public conduct and conflict of interest", the letter contained the following allegations:

--Prior to the May 15 referendum to rescind, Trooper Bieluch promised a "secret plan" for a cheaper solution to school space needs. This was widely reported in the press. Yet Trooper Bieluch betrayed the public trust placed in him as a Building Committe [sic] member by publicly refusing to reveal or discuss this plan with fellow committe [sic] members.

--On May 10, 1990 a neutral forum chaired by a professional moderator was held for pro- and anti-school groups to air their views. Trooper Bieluch's P.A.C. was formally invited to participate as panel members. The enclosed letter expressed his refusal.

--During several school referenda Trooper Bieluch's patrol car has been conspicuously parked at polls, providing well-recognized anti-school publicity.

--Trooper Bieluch personally circulated the petition to repeat the school referendum. (How many citizens feel safe or comfortable refusing their Resident Trooper in this role?)

--After the school defeat, Trooper Bieluch's P.A.C. began their assault on our town budget using similar tactics of exaggeration and distortion.

--After one budget defeat May 30, 1990, Trooper Bieluch's P.A.C. has now forced a 2nd budget referendum scheduled June 26, 1990. These actions have recklessly squandered public funds, denied citizens their right of line item veto at a Town Meeting and seriously threaten our town's ability to function as of a new fiscal year July 1, 1990.

--Trooper Bieluch's P.A.C. has publicly targeted our education budget, seeking staff cuts, even though the Education budget has a net increase of only 6% over last year with an increase in enrollment of 5.8%.

--Trooper Bieluch has conducted the business of the N.H. Property and Business Owners' Association from his office in Town Hall and on company time.

Several documents were attached to the letter, including copies of petitions for the school construction referendum, newspaper articles, and various materials distributed by the association.

Sullivan asked his subordinates to check into the matter, but they did not verify the truthfulness of any of the eight allegations of unethical conduct. They did confirm that the Reginald Smith who had signed the letter was the First Selectman, and they recommended transferring Bieluch from his New Hartford resident trooper position. The First Selectman acts as the administrative chief of police. He is not superior to the resident trooper, but has a working relationship with him.

Less than two weeks after Sullivan received the letter, he decided to transfer Bieluch. When Bieluch's immediate commanding officer, Lieutenant Watrous, contacted Smith and told him that Bieluch might be transferred, Smith said that he would like to see Bieluch replaced because he felt that Bieluch's political activities were affecting his work. At a meeting on July 13, 1990, Bieluch was informed that effective August 1, 1990, he was being transferred to Litchfield, Connecticut, a town fifteen miles away from New Hartford. Lieutenant James D. Hiltz, the commanding officer for Bieluch's district, told Bieluch that the transfer was not a disciplinary measure, but the result of his political activities in the town. Bieluch was not given a hearing, nor was he asked about the allegations in the letter. When Bieluch asked for a copy of the letter, his request was declined. His new position in the Litchfield barracks was not a resident trooper position.

Bieluch filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in August 1990, alleging violations of his first and fourteenth amendment rights. He originally sought monetary and injunctive relief against Sullivan in his individual and official capacities. After a three-day hearing, Bieluch's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied on October 4, 1990. The district court also dismissed Bieluch's claim for damages against Sullivan in his official capacity. After Bieluch retired from the police force in 1992, he dropped his claim for injunctive relief. With respect to the remaining claim for damages against Sullivan in his individual capacity, the district court granted summary judgment for Sullivan in November 1992, holding that qualified immunity protected Sullivan from liability.

Bieluch now appeals, claiming that in finding qualified immunity the district court did not properly balance his first-amendment interests against the state's interest in efficient law enforcement. More specifically, Bieluch claims that Sullivan's actions were not objectively

                reasonable and that his summary dismissal based on mere concern about potential disruption of police functions, without evidence of actual interference and without affording Bieluch any opportunity to respond to the unsubstantiated charges, was not a sufficient basis on which to find qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of this case.   We agree
                
DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law....

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • In re State Police Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 16 Mayo 1995
    ...23 F.3d at 649, while keeping in mind that defendants bear the burden of establishing this affirmative defense. Bieluch v. Sullivan, 999 F.2d 666, 670 (2d Cir.1993). 2. State The individual defendants also assert that plaintiffs' state law claims are barred by Connecticut General Statute § ......
  • Mulligan v. Rioux
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 28 Junio 1994
    ...he or she acted in an objectively reasonable manner. Anderson v. Creighton, supra, 483 U.S. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039; Bieluch v. Sullivan, 999 F.2d 666, 672 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 926, 127 L.Ed.2d 219 (1994). Indeed, the analysis in Krause v. Bennett, supra, ......
  • Birmingham v. Ogden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 8 Octubre 1999
    ...F.3d 318, 325 (2d Cir.1996) (statements by school teacher regarding quality of education provided by public schools); Bieluch v. Sullivan, 999 F.2d 666, 671 (2d Cir.1993) (police officer's public views about taxes, budgets, and public construction projects); Rookard v. Health and Hosps. Cor......
  • Scallet v. Rosenblum, Civil A. No. 94-0016-C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 18 Enero 1996
    ...in order to prevail." Hall, 31 F.3d at 195 (citing Connick, 461 U.S. at 152, 103 S.Ct. at 1692-93); see also Bieluch v. Sullivan, 999 F.2d 666, 671 (2d Cir.1993) ("If the employee's speech substantially involved matters of public concern, the government must make a stronger showing of inter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Sherlock Holmes and Connecticut's Free Speech Statute
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 68, 1993
    • Invalid date
    ...483 U.S. 378 (1987); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968); Bieluch v. Sullivan, 999 F.2d 666 (2d Cir. cert. denied 114 S.Ct. 926 (1994); Piesco v. City of New York, Department of Personnel, 933 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1991); Schnabel v. Tyle......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT