Hatfield v. Board of County Com'rs for Converse County
| Decision Date | 11 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-8094,93-8094 |
| Citation | 52 F.3d 858 |
| Parties | Marjorie HATFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR CONVERSE COUNTY, John Pexton, John Rider, M.V. Lehner, as the present Commissioners of Converse County; Ernie Orrell, Converse County Treasurer; Sherry Shillenn, Converse County Deputy Treasurer, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Bruce S. Asay, Cheyenne, WY, for appellant.
Dale W. Cottam (Gary R. Scott, with him, on the briefs) of Hirst & Applegate, Cheyenne, WY, for appellees the Board of County Com'rs for Converse County, John Pexton, John Rider, M.V. Lehner.
Scott E. Ortiz (Patrick J. Murphy, with him, on the briefs) of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, Casper, WY, for appellee Ernie Orrell, Converse County Treasurer.
Patrick Dixon, Dixon and Despain, Casper, WY, for appellee Sherry Shillenn.
Before TACHA, McKAY, Circuit Judges, and HANSEN, d District Judge.
Plaintiff Marjorie Hatfield brought suit in federal court against defendants after she was terminated from her employment as a clerk in the Treasurer's Office of Converse County, Wyoming. She has asserted five separate claims: (1) denial of due process; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) negligent supervision; and (5) promissory estoppel. The district court granted defendants summary judgment on each of plaintiff's claims. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.
Converse County hired plaintiff to work in its Treasurer's Office in December 1988. Plaintiff initially worked in the auto license department, but she later transferred to the tax department. Her duties in the tax department apparently required computer skills that she initially lacked, causing her problems in completing her tasks. Moreover, plaintiff's co-workers in the tax department allegedly isolated her by excluding her from conversations and training activities, closely monitoring her performance, and reporting to management her minor deviations from office policy.
In October 1991, several of plaintiff's co-workers complained to the County Treasurer, Jim Read, about plaintiff's job performance. Mr. Read reprimanded plaintiff and placed her on probation. According to plaintiff, Mr. Read assured her that she would not be fired. But two days later, on October 25, plaintiff received a formal letter of termination. She had no written contract of employment with the County.
After receiving the termination letter, plaintiff initiated a formal Grievance Board proceeding against Mr. Read in accordance with the Converse County personnel policy manual (the "policy manual"). Plaintiff alleged that she had been harassed and falsely accused by her co-workers and that she was terminated in contravention of Mr. Read's express assurances that she would not be fired.
The County placed plaintiff on administrative leave with pay while the hearing was pending. The hearing began on January 3, 1992. Midway through the proceedings, the hearing was suspended to allow the parties to settle the matter. Plaintiff contends that the hearing was suspended after County officials assured her that she would regain a position with the County. The hearing was suspended for a period not to exceed six weeks.
According to plaintiff, on February 13 John Pexton, a County Commissioner and Chairman of the Grievance Board, assured plaintiff that she would be reinstated within a week and that she would return to work in the Treasurer's office. But on February 24, plaintiff received a termination letter from the newly appointed treasurer, Ernie Orrell. Mr. Orrell had reviewed plaintiff's employment file, discussed plaintiff's performance with her co-workers, and decided to terminate her employment. Plaintiff then sought to reopen her Grievance Board hearing, but the County dismissed the proceedings.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants in federal district court. She asserted four state law claims--breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent supervision, and promissory estoppel--and one claim based on federal law--that she was denied procedural due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted defendants' motion with respect to each of plaintiff's claims, and Ms. Hatfield now appeals.
Before addressing the merits of plaintiff's claims, we must first resolve a jurisdictional issue. Defendants contend that plaintiff's notice of appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment was untimely and that, consequently, this court only has jurisdiction to review the district court's August 27, 1993 order denying plaintiff's "motion for reconsideration."
On August 18, 1993--eleven business days after the district court entered its summary judgment order--plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Summary Judgment or in the Alternative a Notice of Appeal" (the "combined document"). On August 27, the district court denied plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff then filed a separate notice of appeal on September 24.
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require litigants in civil cases to file a notice of appeal "with the clerk of the district court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Plaintiff's September 24 filing was therefore untimely as a notice of appeal from the district court's summary judgment order; it was timely only as a notice of appeal from the district court's denial of plaintiff's "motion to reconsider." If, however, the August 18 combined document constituted a valid notice of appeal from the summary judgment order, it was timely, and this court would have jurisdiction to review the merits of plaintiff's appeal.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize no "motion for reconsideration." Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 89, 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992). Instead, this court construes such a filing in one of two ways. If the motion is filed within ten days of the district court's entry of judgment, the motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Id. Alternatively, if the motion is filed more than ten days after the entry of judgment, it is considered a motion seeking relief from the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Id. This distinction can be significant in determining the timeliness of a notice of appeal, for a Rule 59(e) motion tolls the 30-day period, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(E), while a Rule 60(b) motion does not, Marshall v. Shalala, 5 F.3d 453, 454 (10th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1309, 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994).
In Skagerberg v. Oklahoma, 797 F.2d 881 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam), this court confronted a similar combined motion for relief/notice of appeal under the same version of Fed.R.App.P. 4 as was in force when plaintiff filed her combined document in this case. 1 The appellant in Skagerberg entitled his filing a "Motion for Rule 60 Relief, or Appeal" and filed the document seven days after the district court entered its judgment. Id. at 882. Because the appellant had filed the document within ten days of the entry of judgment, the court treated the motion portion of his filing as a Rule 59(e) motion (despite the appellant's characterization to the contrary). Id. at 883. The court emphasized that because a timely Rule 59(e) motion tolls the period for filing a notice of appeal, "[a] notice of appeal filed while a timely Rule 59(e) motion is pending is ineffective to confer jurisdiction on a court of appeals." Id.; see also Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 61, 103 S.Ct. 400, 403, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982). In essence, a district court's judgment becomes "final for appeal purposes only after the district court's disposition of the Rule 59(e) motion." Skagerberg, 797 F.2d at 883. As a result, under the old version of Rule 4, "when a timely Rule 59(e) motion and a notice of appeal are combined in one document the notice of appeal is premature and has no effect." Id. 2
Unlike the appellant in Skagerberg, plaintiff here filed his combined document eleven working days after the entry of judgment. The motion portion of plaintiff's filing therefore was a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), not a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Cf. Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243. Unlike a Rule 59(e) motion, a Rule 60(b) motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and does not affect the finality of the district court's judgment. Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560 n. 7, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Consequently, a pending Rule 60(b) motion does not prevent an otherwise valid notice of appeal from conferring jurisdiction on the court of appeals. See Marshall, 5 F.3d at 454. Moreover, nothing in Skagerberg indicates that an otherwise valid notice of appeal is made ineffectual by its presentation in the same document as a separate motion. Thus, so long as plaintiff's combined document complied with the content requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 3(c), it constituted a timely notice of appeal from the district court's summary judgment order.
Rule 3(c) requires a notice of appeal to specify the party making the appeal, the judgment or order from which the party appeals, and the court to which the appeal is taken. Plaintiff's combined document, while also operating as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), comports with each of these requirements; 3 defendants do not contend otherwise. We therefore conclude that the combined document filed by plaintiff on August 18, 1993, constituted a timely notice of appeal from the district court's summary judgment order, and this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meiners v. University of Kansas
...protections were necessary, and (2) defendants deprived her of the appropriate level of due process. See Hatfield v. Bd. Of County Comm'rs, 52 F.3d 858, 862 (10th Cir.1995). In light of this framework, the Court turns to the threshold issue whether plaintiff possessed a protected property P......
-
Schrader v. Emporia State Univ.
... ... 2012) (quoting Hatfield v. Bd ... of Cnty. Comm'rs , 52 F.3d 858, ... He relies on a decision from the Harvey County District ... Court in Kansas that departs ... ...
-
Opala v. Watt
...were applicable; and, if so, then (2) was the individual afforded an appropriate level of process.'" Hatfield v. Board of County Comm'rs, 52 F.3d 858, 862 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Farthing v. City of Shawnee, 39 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir.1994)). The plaintiff must demonstrate that he had a ......
-
Palmer v. Unified Government of Wyandotte, 98-2382-JWL.
...were applicable; and, if so, then (2) was the individual afforded an appropriate level of process.'" Hatfield v. Board of County Comm'rs, 52 F.3d 858, 862 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Farthing v. City of Shawnee, 39 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir.1994)). Whether a protected property interest exists ......
-
Post-judgment Day: a Guide to Filing Timely Notices of Appeal in Federal Court
...2000) (listing pleadings that have been construed as a functional equivalent of a notice of appeal); Hatfield v. Bd. of County Commrs, 52 F.3d 858, 862 (10th Cir. 1995); Brackett v. Hautamaa, 200 F. App'x 758, 760 (10th Cir. 2006). [30] Hatfield, 52 F.3d at 862 (holding that the motion was ......