Mortillaro v. State of Louisiana
Decision Date | 10 August 1972 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 72-1868. |
Citation | 356 F. Supp. 521 |
Parties | Steve J. MORTILLARO v. The STATE OF LOUISIANA, Through the Honorable Edwin EDWARDS, Governor, and the New Orleans City Civil Service Commission. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Irwin R. Sanders, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen. of La., Baton Rouge, La., Marcel Armagnac, Asst. Atty. Gen. of La., Blake G. Arata, City Atty., Michael Starks, Asst. City Atty., Ralph D. Dwyer, Atty. for New Orleans Civil Service Commission and its Members, New Orleans, La., for defendants.
Moise W. Dennery, Atty. for La. State Dept. of Civil Service, New Orleans, La., amicus curiae.
Before WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and BOYLE and WEST, District Judges.
I. THE CASE
This action was originally instituted by the plaintiff, Steve Mortillaro, a classified employee within the Civil Service of the City of New Orleans, individually and as "a representative of all persons similarly situated." Subsequently, twelve other persons, also alleging to be classified employees in the Civil Service of the City of New Orleans, intervened as plaintiffs.1
Hearing on all issues presented in this litigation2 was held on July 26, 1972 by the statutory Court which took the matter under submission. Jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201 based upon causes of action under 42 U. S.C. §§ 1983, 1985.
Plaintiffs declare intentions "to seek a nonpartisan elective position" without identification of such position. However, it is undisputed that the office is that of delegate to the Constitutional Convention provided in Act 2 of the 1972 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, approved May 25, 1972, to be called and convened on January 5, 1973.
Mortillaro alleges that he had sought and obtained an advisory opinion from the Civil Service Commission for the City of New Orleans which held that he was prohibited by Article 14, Section 15(N)(7) of the Constitution of Louisiana of 1921, by Section 4-1504 of the Charter of the City of New Orleans and by Section 6 of the Code of Ethics of the City of New Orleans, Ordinance Calendar No. 2625, MCS, from seeking the aforesaid office.
Following review sought by Mortillaro, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana on July 12, 1972 held that "Within the context of Art. 14, Sec. 15(N)(7) of the Constitution of Louisiana the position of delegate to this Constitutional Convention is a public office and a Civil Service Employee is prohibited from being a candidate for election thereto." Mortillaro v. Civil Service Commission, No. 5430. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied review on July 17, 1972. Mortillaro v. Civil Service Commission, et al, 263 So. 2d 906.3
It should be noted that the state actions involved only the validity of the Civil Service Commission's advisory ruling. No constitutional issues were raised by Mortillaro in those actions.
Plaintiffs here, however, do raise constitutional issues and ask this Court to redress the deprivation under color of law by the State of Louisiana, the City of New Orleans, and agencies thereof, of a right or rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, and more particularly, Amendments 1, 5, 14 and 15 thereof.
Specifically, plaintiffs pray for the empaneling of a statutory Court to hear the matter, judgment declaring the Louisiana Constitutional and the City of New Orleans Charter and Ordinance provisions unconstitutional and injunctive relief against enforcement "of the state statute."
The originally named defendants were the State of Louisiana and the New Orleans City Civil Service Commissions. The individual members of the City Civil Service Commission and the City of New Orleans were made additional defendants by an amended complaint.
By joint stipulations filed at the hearing it is established that all plaintiffs have filed their statements of candidacy as required for qualification to run for election to the office of delegate to the Convention,4 and that all plaintiffs, in their efforts to be elected, will participate and engage in those activities ordinarily and usually associated with candidacy for an elective office, including:
(See Record Document No. 15).
(See Record Document No. 16).
In addition to oral argument, briefs were submitted by all parties and an amicus curiae brief was filed, under leave granted by the Court, on behalf of the Louisiana Department of State Civil Service.
The defendants urge (1) that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the plaintiffs have failed to exhaust State administrative and judicial remedies; (2) that this Court should abstain under the rule of the Younger v. Harris sextet; (3) that no statute of statewide application is involved and if it is, because the City of New Orleans Charter and Code of Ethics Ordinance, being of local application, the matter is one that must be decided by a single judge Court; (4) that no substantial federal question is presented requiring adjudication by a statutory Court; (5) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and (6) that the State Constitutional and the City Charter and Ordinance provisions, under attack, are valid.5
We consider first the issues of whether or not a statute of statewide, rather than purely local, application is involved and, if the former, whether or not a substantial federal question is presented requiring adjudication by a statutory Court.
II. STATEWIDE vs. LOCAL APPLICATION
Defendants contend that the provisions under attack have local rather than statewide application. Both the original and amended complaints pray that we declare unconstitutional Article 14, Section 15(N)(7) of the Constitution of Louisiana of 1921, Section 4-1504 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans, and Section 6 of the Code of Ethics for the City of New Orleans, Ordinance Calendar No. 2625, Mayor Council Series, and that we enjoin defendants from enforcing said provisions.
Section 2281, Title 28, United States Code, provides for a three-judge court when the enforcement of a state statute is sought to be enjoined. While the term "statute" does embrace state constitutional provisions, American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U.S. 582, 66 S.Ct. 761, 90 L.Ed. 873 (1946), it does not encompass municipal ordinances or state statutes, and thus state constitutional provisions, having only local application. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97, 87 S.Ct. 1544, 18 L.Ed.2d 643 (1966).
The Louisiana Constitution of 1921 in Article 14, Section 15(A)(1) commands that a system of classified civil service be set up for the state and for cities having a population of over two hundred fifty thousand.6 The provisions of Article 14, Section 15 are self-executing (Article 14, Section 15, (X) and reserve to the Legislature the right to amend or repeal "all existing laws relating to the State or City Civil Service System" or to adopt new...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Farm Workers Nat. Union v. Babbitt
...States, 368 F.Supp. 11 (C.D. Cal.1973); Valley Health Systems v. City of Racine, 369 F.Supp. 97 (E.D.Wis.1973); Mortillaro v. State of Louisiana, 356 F.Supp. 521 (E.D.La.1972). The significance of these cases is clear; that is, if plaintiffs are persons against whom the particular criminal ......
-
Morial v. Judiciary Commission of State of La.
...1319 (1968); Hobbs v. Thompson, 448 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1971); Hall v. Garson, 430 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1970); Mortillaro v. State of Louisiana, 356 F.Supp. 521 (E.D.La.1972). 6. The principles of comity and "federalism" do not serve to bar this Court from granting declaratory or injunctive re......
-
Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States
... ... State of Washington v. Udall, 417 F.2d 1310, 1319, 1320 (9th Cir. 1969). In other words, only if the ... ...
-
Manes v. Goldin
...part of the state. Ortiz v. Colon, 475 F.2d 135 (1st Cir. 1973); Hjelle v. Brooks, 377 F. Supp. 430 (D.Alaska 1974); Mortillaro v. State, 356 F.Supp. 521 (E.D.La.1972); Goldman v. Olsen, 286 F.Supp. 35 (W.D. Wis. 1968). Jurisdiction of a three-judge court is not denied by Board of Regents v......