Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, s. 85-1738
| Decision Date | 03 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 85-1738,s. 85-1738 |
| Citation | 888 F.2d 724 |
| Parties | Raymon J. MELTON, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a municipal corporation, Lloyd A. Gramling, Chief of Police for the City of Oklahoma City, Gerald L. Emmett, Assistant Chief of Police for the City of Oklahoma City, Marvin Maxwell, Major, Oklahoma City Police Department, William R. Chambless, Major, Oklahoma City Police Department, Carl Smith, Lieutenant, Oklahoma City Police Department, Robert Taylor, Lieutenant, Oklahoma City Police Department, David McBride, Lieutenant, Oklahoma City Police Department, and Paula Hearn, Assistant to the City Manager, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. to 85-1742 and 85-1811. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, McKAY, LOGAN, SEYMOUR, MOORE, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS, District Judge *.
Before the court are defendants'-appellants' petitions for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. Upon a vote of the panel members, see 879 F.2d 706, the petitions for rehearing are denied. A majority of the court's active judges, however, agree to rehear these cases en banc limited to the following issues:
1. Whether the district court committed plain error in instructing the jury that a liberty interest may be violated by charges which "would stigmatize the employee's reputation or foreclose future employment opportunities"?
2. Whether the district court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that before a liberty interest may be infringed, the charges must be found to be false?
3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a name-clearing hearing complete with the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses before the disciplinary review board, assuming dissemination of the perjury charges deprived plaintiff of a liberty interest?
4. Further assuming plaintiff is entitled to some sort of a hearing, need it be pre-termination, or would some post-termination hearing or name-clearing opportunity be adequate?
The clerk of court is hereby directed to enter the appropriate briefing and oral argument schedule.
SO ORDERED.
* Honorable Dale E. Saffels, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Board of Com'rs of County of Wyandotte, Civ. A. No. 90-2059-O.
...v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386, 1394 (10th Cir.1990); Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, Okla., 879 F.2d 706, 727, reh'g granted in part, 888 F.2d 724 (10th Cir.1989). The "objective reasonableness" standard was employed by the Harlow court for determining whether an official is entitled to qualif......
-
Winslow v. Romer
...is a matter in the district court's discretion. Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706, rehearing granted on other grounds, 888 F.2d 724 (10th Cir.1989). For the reasons stated in connection with my ruling on injunctive relief, I have little difficulty concluding that this action sat......
-
Clemmons v. Bohannon
...City, 879 F.2d 706, 724 (10th Cir.1989) (judicial notice taken by appellate court of city charter) reh'g granted on other grounds, 888 F.2d 724 (1989); Mills v. Denver Tramway Corp., 155 F.2d 808, 812 (10th Cir.1946) (appellate court has discretion to take judicial notice of facts not calle......
-
Hernandez v. Conde
...F.2d 491, 499 (10th Cir. 1990); Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706, 728-29 (10th Cir.1989), reh'g granted on other grounds, 888 F.2d 724 (1989). The Supreme Court notes that "[a]s the qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly inco......