Hoard, Et Al v. Sizemore, Et Al, Nos. 97-5540
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY; ALICE M. BATCHELDER |
| Citation | 198 F.3d 205 |
| Parties | (6th Cir. 1999) Elizabeth Hoard, Administratrix of the Estate of Russell A. Hoard; Thomas Bentley; Vernon Muncy; Nancy Wooton; Joan Gay; Carl Wooton; Norman Couch; Elias Collett; Dean Adams; Stevie Caldwell; Leslie Huff; Martin Muncy; Ronnie Huff; Ronnie Sizemore; Levi Muncy; Betty Baker; Clyde Conway Vance; George Sizemore; and Steve Collins, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Onzie Sizemore, in his individual capacity as Leslie County Judge/Executive, Defendant-Appellant (97-5540), Onzie Sizemore, in his official capacity as Leslie County Judge/Executive; Ruie Caldwell, individually and in his official capacity as Magistrate of Leslie County, Kentucky; Billy Sizemore, in his official capacity as Magistrate of Leslie County, Kentucky; James H. Boggs, individually and in his official capacity as Magistrate of Leslie County, Kentucky; William Lewis, individually and in his official capacity as Magistrate of Leslie County, Kentucky; Leslie County Fiscal Court; Leslie County, Kentucky, Defendants-Appellants (97-5585). Argued: |
| Docket Number | 97-5585,Nos. 97-5540 |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1998 |
Page 205
v.
Onzie Sizemore, in his individual capacity as Leslie County Judge/Executive, Defendant-Appellant (97-5540),
Page 206
Decided and Filed: November 17, 1999
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London, No. 94-00472--Jennifer B. Coffman, District Judge.
Page 207
Page 208
Alva A. Hollon, Jr., John O. Hollon, SAMS & HOLLON, Jacksonville, Florida, Kenneth A. Buckle, Hyden, Kentucky, for Appellees.
Jason E. Williams, Farmer, Kelley, Brown & Williams, London, Kentucky, for the Defendant-Appellant Onzie Sizemore in No. 97-5540.
Sun S. Choy, LANDRUM & SHOUSE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Defendant Ruie Caldwell in No. 97-5540.
Allen Button, WILLIAMS & WAGONER, Louisville, Kentucky, for Defendant Billy Sizemore in No. 97-5540.
William A. Hoskins, III, John W. Walters, David B. Mattingly, JACKSON & KELLY, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellants in No-97-5585.
DAUGHTREY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GILMAN, J., joined. BATCHELDER, J. (pp. 222-24), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Before: BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge.
Before us are two appeals, both related to a § 1983 action in which the plaintiffs alleged that their First Amendment rights were violated when Onzie Sizemore, as the newly elected county judge-executive of Leslie County, Kentucky, intentionally did
Page 209
not re-nominate them for county employment in retaliation for failing to support his 1993 campaign1. There are currently 19 plaintiffs before the court, all former employees of county offices2.
In the first appeal, defendant Onzie Sizemore, in his individual capacity, contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In the second, defendants Leslie County and Leslie County Fiscal Court, along with Sizemore and two county magistrates in their official capacities, contend that if this court finds that Sizemore is entitled to qualified immunity, then the plaintiffs' claims against them must also be dismissed. To support this contention, they argue that because the issues are inextricably intertwined, we should assert pendent appellate jurisdiction over their appeal, even though the appeal on its own would not be reviewable.
We conclude that the district court erred in denying Sizemore summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity with respect to four of the plaintiffs, who fail to state a First Amendment violation because they fall within the Branti v. Finkel exception for political patronage dismissals. Accordingly, the claims of these four plaintiffs against the county and other defendants must be dismissed, because they cannot state a claim against these defendants if there has been no violation of their constitutional rights. However, we cannot exercise jurisdiction at this time over the claims of the remaining 15 plaintiffs, because the district court determined that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to what motivated their constructive discharge. Such a ruling prevents appellate review at this stage of the proceedings, under the Supreme Court's opinion in Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995). Consequently, we also have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the pendent defendants as to these 15 plaintiffs.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the May 1993 Leslie County Republican primary, Sizemore defeated the incumbent county judge, C. Allen Muncy. 3 Because there was no opposition from the Democratic party in the November 1993 general election, Sizemore was sworn in as the new county judge in January 1994. Prior to taking this office, Sizemore had completed two four-year terms as a magistrate on the Leslie County Fiscal Court.
During the primary campaign, the plaintiffs openly and publicly supported Judge Muncy. According to their testimony, they displayed their support by engaging
Page 210
in activities such as talking to people throughout Leslie County, putting bumper stickers on their vehicles, placing signs in their yards, wearing hats, and attending political rallies. At the end of December 1993, all county employees, including each of the original 22 plaintiffs in this lawsuit, received a memorandum from Sizemore, which Judge Muncy had allowed Sizemore to insert into the employees' final paycheck. The memorandum stated: "It is my understanding that your job in county government will terminate January 3, 1994. Anyone who is presently employed must be renominated and rehired by the new administration. Hopefully, many current employees will be rehired as soon as possible. I invite you all to reapply for county government. I appreciate your contribution to Leslie County."
None of the plaintiffs were rehired to work under Sizemore's administration. They filed a civil rights action against Sizemore and each of the four magistrates in their individual capacities, and also against Leslie County, the Leslie County Fiscal Court, and Sizemore and each of the magistrates in their official capacities. In this action, the plaintiffs alleged that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the defendants because they were terminated from their county employment for the exercise of their political beliefs and were not afforded procedural due process. They also argued that their termination violated state laws and alleged that it was an unwritten policy or custom in Leslie County to get rid of the supporters of one's political opponents upon taking office.
After protracted discovery, Sizemore, in his individual capacity, and the remaining defendants filed motions for summary judgment, with Sizemore specifically invoking the doctrine of qualified immunity. On March 31, 1997, the district court granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motions. The court (1) granted the defendants' motions with regard to the plaintiffs' due process and state law claims; (2) granted the magistrates, in their individual capacity, summary judgment with regard to the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims; (3) denied summary judgment with regard to liability of the county by virtue of suit against officials in their official capacity with respect to plaintiffs' First Amendment claims; (4) granted summary judgment with regard to the First Amendment claims of plaintiffs Christy Couch Sexton and Marlene Feltner; (5) denied summary judgment with regard to all remaining plaintiffs' First Amendment claims; and (6) denied Sizemore qualified immunity. Sizemore and the other defendants timely filed separate notices of appeal.
The summary judgment record included evidence that it was the custom in Leslie County for the victor of an election to "enjoy the spoils" by terminating all of the employees of the previous administration and hiring back only those the official wanted. In addition, the parties have devoted a fair amount of their appellate briefs to discussing the financial condition of the county when Sizemore took office, which, for reasons discussed below, is not relevant to our analysis at this stage of the litigation.
I. Plaintiffs Vernon Muncy, Martin Muncy, Russell Hoard, and Betty Sue Baker and the Branti Exception
A. Jurisdiction
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as explained by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), government officials engaged in the performance of discretionary functions are generally "shielded from liability [and, indeed, from suit] for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." 457 U.S. at 818
Page 211
(citations omitted). The defendant, as the movant in a motion for summary judgment, must show that no genuine issues of material fact remain that would defeat his claim of qualified immunity, and the plaintiff carries the burden to allege and prove that the defendant official violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Pray v. City of Sandusky, 49 F.3d 1154, 1158 (6th Cir. 1995).
In this case, plaintiffs Vernon Muncy, Martin Muncy, Russell Hoard, and Betty Sue Baker allege that their clearly established First Amendment rights were violated when they were constructively discharged on the basis of political affiliation. Sizemore contends that he should be granted qualified immunity with respect to these claims because "party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public offices involved" and, therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to assert a violation of their First Amendment rights. Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 518 (1980).
As a threshold matter, the plaintiffs argue that we lack jurisdiction to review this question, because the district court's denial of summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alberti v. County of Nassau, No. 02-CV-2542 (DRH)(ETB).
...elected officials exempted); Aiken v. Rio Arriba Bd. of County Comm'rs, 134 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1222 (D.N.M.2000) (same); Hoard v. Sizemore, 198 F.3d 205, 215 (6th Cir.1999) ("Given ... the fact that the assistant road foreman may be called upon to serve as the executive's liaison with the publ......
-
Pierce v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corr., No. 4:01CV1982.
...in his individual capacity also disposes of any liability on the part of that official in his official capacity. Hoard v. Sizemore, 198 F.3d 205, 221-22 (6th Cir.1999). Thus, the individual defendants in their official capacity, and therefore the Department as well, face no monetary liabili......
-
Jones v. City of Elyria, No. 18-4157
...Inc. v. City of Chattanooga , 768 F.3d 464, 478 (6th Cir. 2014) ; Smoak v. Hall , 460 F.3d 768, 782 (6th Cir. 2006) ; Hoard v. Sizemore , 198 F.3d 205, 211 (6th Cir. 1999).1 The lead opinion remarks that "because Mitchell did not witness the events leading up to the altercation, she could h......
-
Peterson v. Dean, No. 14–5219.
...functions of political concern, including the collection, accounting, and distribution of state and county taxes.”); Hoard v. Sizemore, 198 F.3d 205, 214 (6th Cir.1999) (holding that the position of county road foreman was inherently political and fell squarely within the category one); Col......
-
Alberti v. County of Nassau, No. 02-CV-2542 (DRH)(ETB).
...elected officials exempted); Aiken v. Rio Arriba Bd. of County Comm'rs, 134 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1222 (D.N.M.2000) (same); Hoard v. Sizemore, 198 F.3d 205, 215 (6th Cir.1999) ("Given ... the fact that the assistant road foreman may be called upon to serve as the executive's liaison with the publ......
-
Pierce v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corr., No. 4:01CV1982.
...in his individual capacity also disposes of any liability on the part of that official in his official capacity. Hoard v. Sizemore, 198 F.3d 205, 221-22 (6th Cir.1999). Thus, the individual defendants in their official capacity, and therefore the Department as well, face no monetary liabili......
-
Jones v. City of Elyria, No. 18-4157
...Inc. v. City of Chattanooga , 768 F.3d 464, 478 (6th Cir. 2014) ; Smoak v. Hall , 460 F.3d 768, 782 (6th Cir. 2006) ; Hoard v. Sizemore , 198 F.3d 205, 211 (6th Cir. 1999).1 The lead opinion remarks that "because Mitchell did not witness the events leading up to the altercation, she could h......
-
Peterson v. Dean, No. 14–5219.
...functions of political concern, including the collection, accounting, and distribution of state and county taxes.”); Hoard v. Sizemore, 198 F.3d 205, 214 (6th Cir.1999) (holding that the position of county road foreman was inherently political and fell squarely within the category one); Col......