Jones v. Hopper

Decision Date19 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 9248.,9248.
Citation410 F.2d 1323
PartiesGeorge JONES, Jr., Appellant, v. Jesse Victor HOPPER, President of Southern Colorado State College, and C. Gale Sellens, William H. Southard, Robert W. Bartley, L. Richard Bratton, Phillip M. Lorton, Stuart W. McLaughlin, and Mrs. William B. Naugle, Members of the Board of Trustees of Southern Colorado State College, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Eugene Deikman, Denver, Colo. (Harry K. Nier, Jr., Denver, Colo., with him on brief) for appellant.

Richard W. Laugesen, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, Colo. (Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., James W. Creamer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, Colo., with him on brief) for appellees.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN, HILL, SETH, HICKEY and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment dismissing with prejudice the complaint of appellant Jones, an associate professor of philosophy. The basis of the dismissal was that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellees, who are the President and members of the Board of Trustees of Southern Colorado State College, filed the motion to dismiss upon which the judgment is based.

The dismissal of the complaint, drawn as a civil rights pleading, presents the issue of whether a claim is stated under the Civil Rights Act.1

The complaint alleges jurisdictional facts,2 identity of parties, their residence and citizenship, and the status of the college.

The complaint alleges the powers of the Board of Trustees are as follows:

"The Board of Trustees is vested by §§ 124-17-1 and 124-5-1 Colo.Rev. Stats. (1963) with the entire control and management of the affairs of the College, has general supervision of said College and the control and direction of the funds and appropriations made thereto, with power to appoint and remove all subordinate officers, professors, associate professors, teachers, assistants, employees or agents, in, about, or concerning said College, to appoint or employ, discharge and suspend, contract and fail to renew contracts of employees and other subordinates, and to fix the salaries of each and prescribe their several duties. They further have the power and authority to prescribe the various books and texts to be used in the Colleges, the courses of study and instruction and to make all needful rules, regulations and By Laws for the good government and management of the same. The actions of President Hopper, hereinafter described, were approved, authorized and ratified by said Board of Trustees, and each of them."

It is further alleged the acts complained of are exercised under color of the statutes, regulations, customs and usages vesting the power above averred.

The complaint further alleges that Jones was given notice that his services would be terminated at the end of the academic year by a letter sent from the President and authorized by the Board which is attached to the complaint as Exhibit A.3

The complaint then continues with a partial description of the "John Dean case" referred to in the above exhibit.

The curriculum vitae of appellant Jones is set forth in the complaint as well as the details of his association and status with Southern Colorado State College. In this description of his status with the college, Jones points out that the duration of each appointment under which he served was one year and that it was at the end of his second appointment that the appellees determined he would not be reappointed.

The allegations then conclude that the reason Jones was not reappointed was because he had exercised his constitutionally protected rights4 in the following manner:

(a) He objected to the disqualification of an applicant for his department because the applicant was an Oriental.

(b) He attacked an English department textbook in a student newspaper.

(c) He founded an independent faculty-student publication which contained articles criticizing the war in Viet Nam, commenting on labor problems and pacifism, and an article objecting to monitored classrooms.

(d) He supported the student, John Dean, referred to above in Exhibit A, who had been committed to a hospital pursuant to a court order obtained by his parents as a result of the student's attempt to register with his draft board as a conscientious objector.

Jones averred he was a pacifist by religious conviction and that his views expressed orally and by writing on this subject were an exercise of his religious freedom.

He concluded that because of the above conduct and actions an expectancy of continued employment was terminated which was an injury to an interest which the law will protect against invasion by acts in violation of the Civil Rights Act.5

Jones alleges he was damaged as a result of the failure to renew his teaching contract, and relief is prayed for in the amount of $300,000.00.

The second claim of Jones' complaint by reference adopts the foregoing allegations describing them as a conspiracy to punish him for exercising his constitutional rights granted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He further concludes he was denied equal protection under the law.

The basic requirements of a complaint based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are: (1) that the conduct complained of was engaged in under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct subjected the plaintiff to a deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Federal Constitution and laws.6 The allegations necessary to state such a claim, as in the case of any other civil action in the federal courts, are not to be held insufficient unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.7

When we examine the complaint herein in the light of the foregoing rules, we are directed to ask: What guaranteed right, privilege or immunity was denied Jones which is protected under the Constitution and laws?

The complaint alleges the refusal of the appellees to reappoint Jones after the term of his current appointment expired.

Jones contends the appellees, authorized by the Colorado statutes to administer the college, have denied him a right of expectancy to continued employment because he exercised freely his constitutional rights of speech, publication and religion. Jones cites only Bomar v. Keyes8 as authority recognizing this expectancy interest.

Bomar, supra, related to a high school instructor who relied upon a probationary contract of employment which was terminated in October during the academic year. The court assumed that Bomar's discharge was not a breach of contract,9 but identified her interest in the following language: "Nevertheless, it may have been the termination of an expectancy of continued employment, and that is an injury to an interest which the law will protect against invasion by acts themselves unlawful, such as the denial of a federal privilege."10 The federal privilege involved was jury service.

Analyzing this language, we direct ourselves to the question: What is the source of the interest? In seeking the answer we must take the facts into account.

The contract which established the interest attributed to Bomar was a probationary contract of employment between Bomar and the Board of Education. Keyes was not privy to the contract; therefore, the court could assume that Bomar's discharge was not a breach of contract. Keyes, however, by complaining to the Board, had interfered with the interest stemming from the contract existing between Bomar and the Board of Education. This analysis is sustained by the Restatement of Torts § 766 (1939)11 which is cited as authority in Bomar.

The source of the interest in Bomar is the contract. The action sounds in tort against one not privileged to interfere with the contract.

The complaint in our case makes no allegation or inference that a contract existed. Jones' complaint expressly concedes that his "termination was not a breach of contract," thereby admitting that a contract did not exist. Accordingly, the interest which Jones seeks to assert cannot be derived from a contract.

We now look to the Federal Constitution and laws for the source of the interest secured.

The Supreme Court has consistently held, "the interest of a government employee in retaining his job, can be summarily denied. It has become a settled principle that government employment, in the absence of legislation, can be revoked at the will of the appointing officer. * * * This principle was reaffirmed quite recently in Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 79 S.Ct. 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012."12 The foregoing must be read in the light of the principle enunciated in Pickering v. Board of Education,13 which quotes Keyishian v. Board of Regents.14 The principle stated teaches that public employment may be denied altogether subject, however, to the restriction that unreasonable conditions may not be imposed upon the granting of public employment.15 There is nothing in the complaint to warrant an inference or conclusion that the Colorado statute nor its application herein went "beyond what might be justified in the exercise of the State's legitimate inquiry into the fitness and competency of its teachers."16

As a matter of fact, there are no allegations relating to conditions of employment of professors or assistant professors at Southern Colorado State College. The complaint merely alleges the duties and authority of the administrators. Therefore, we can find no where in the complaint an allegation of any identified interest which is secured by the Federal Constitution or laws.

The complaint alleges a Colorado institution involved, governed by the laws of Colorado identified in the pleading. Appellant was a professor at this institution of learning. "It is clear that a professor is not an officer, but an employe under contract to fill a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • Comtronics, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 17 Junio 1975
    ...or immunities secured to plaintiff by the Federal Constitution and Laws. Kletschka v. Driver, 411 F.2d 436 (2 Cir. 1969); Jones v. Hopper, 410 F.2d 1323 (10 Cir. 1969), cert. den. 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1111, 25 L.Ed.2d 399 (1969). In the instant case plaintiff certainly alleges that its ri......
  • Eastwood v. National Bank of Commerce, Altus, Okl.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • 25 Agosto 1987
    ...v. King, 537 F.2d 385, 386 (10th Cir.1976). In making this determination, conclusory allegations are disregarded, see Jones v. Hopper, 410 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1111, 25 L.Ed.2d 399 (1970) but all well-pleaded factual allegations must be accepted a......
  • Cooper v. State of Utah
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • 21 Diciembre 1987
    ...56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Taylor v. Nichols, 409 F.Supp. 927, 951 (D.Kan.1976), aff'd 558 F.2d 561 (10th Cir.1977); Jones v. Hopper, 410 F.2d 1323, 1326-27 (10th Cir.1969), cert. den., 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1111, 25 L.Ed.2d 399 8 The right to marry was first recognized as a fundamental right ......
  • Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth 8212 162
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 29 Junio 1972
    ...varying conclusions. Some have held that neither procedural safeguard is required. E.g., Orr v. Trinter, 444 F.2d 128 (CA6); Jones v. Hopper, 410 F.2d 1323 (CA10); Freeman v. Gould Special School District, 405 F.2d 1153 (CA8). At least one court has held that there is a right to a statement......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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