Mumford v. Zieba, 1:90CV2243.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1:90CV2243.,1:90CV2243.
• Citation: 788 F. Supp. 987
• Parties: David M. MUMFORD, Plaintiff, v. Joseph C. ZIEBA, etc., Lorain County Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

788 F. Supp. 987

David M. MUMFORD, Plaintiff, v. Joseph C. ZIEBA, etc., Lorain County Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division, Defendants.

No. 1:90CV2243.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, E.D.

March 31, 1992.

Dennis J. Niermann, Edward G. Kramer, Kramer & Tobocman, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Pamela I. Theodotou, Lane, Alton, & Horst, Columbus, Ohio, M. Robert Flanagan, Office of the Pros. Atty., Elyria, Ohio, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KRENZLER, Senior District Judge.

This case is before this Court on the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff, David M. Mumford, and by defendants, Judge Joseph C. Zieba and the Lorain County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division ("Domestic Relations Court").

In his complaint, Mumford claims that he is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he was discharged from his position as a referee of the Domestic Relations Court based on his political affiliations, in violation of his rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Mumford's motion for summary judgment asserts that the evidence shows that he was discharged because of his political affiliations, and that the first and fourteenth amendments protected him from such a patronage dismissal as a matter of law.

In their motion for summary judgment, Judge Zieba and the Domestic Relations Court contend that they did not discharge Mumford because of his political affiliations. They also argue that the first and fourteenth amendments did not protect Mumford from dismissal because political affiliation was an appropriate requirement for his position as referee. Finally, Judge Zieba argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford's damages claims because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be discharged based on his political affiliations.

The Court finds that material issues of fact preclude summary judgment for Judge Zieba on the issue of qualified immunity. At the time of Mumford's dismissal, it was clearly established that a governmental employee could not be discharged because of his political affiliation unless political affiliation was an appropriate requirement for the performance of the public office involved. Judge Zieba could not have reasonably believed that political affiliation was an appropriate requirement for the position of referee of the Domestic Relations Court. However, there is conflicting evidence as to whether political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in Judge Zieba's dismissal of Mumford. This material issue of fact precludes this Court from determining whether Judge Zieba could reasonably have believed that his dismissal of Mumford was lawful in light of the clearly established law.

In addition to the conflicting evidence regarding the reasons for Mumford's discharge, there are also genuine issues of material fact as to whether Judge Zieba acted under color of state law, and whether any constitutional violation resulted from a policy of custom of the Domestic Relations Court. These genuine issues of material fact also preclude summary judgment for any party on the merits of Mumford's complaint.

I. FACTS

The evidentiary materials submitted by the parties disclose the following facts. Mumford was a referee of the Domestic Relations Court from January 22, 1979 until January 2, 1989. Throughout that time he was a registered Democrat.

In 1988, Mumford assisted Judge Henry T. Webber's campaign for reelection to the Domestic Relations Court, which was opposed by defendant Judge Zieba. During the campaign, Judge Zieba told Mumford, "don't get caught in the cross-fire."

Judge Zieba defeated Judge Webber in the November, 1988 election. On December 22, 1988, Judge Zieba sent Mumford the following letter:

Dear Mr. Mumford:

Please be advised that my term of office as Judge, Lorain County Domestic Relations Court, commences on Tuesday, January 3, 1989.

I wish to advise you that you will not be retained and your services will not be required at that time.

Thus, Mumford was terminated on the date Judge Zieba took office. Thirteen other court employees were discharged at the same time. Two new referees, both registered Republicans, replaced Mumford.

In answers to interrogatories, defendants identified six reasons for the termination of Mumford's employment:

1) The legal ability to terminate.

2) Substandard job performance, conduct and attitude.

3) Substandard professional reputation as referee in the legal community.

4) The position of referee required confidence, loyalty and policy making. Continued employment of the Plaintiff would be detrimental to the smooth, efficient, and just administration of the Domestic Relations Court.

5) Not wanting the Plaintiff to continue to be a member of the staff of the Domestic Relations Court.

6) Defendant's opinion of the Plaintiff, in the Defendant's official capacity as Administrative Judge of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.

In his deposition testimony, Judge Zieba stated that he did not believe that Mumford could be loyal to him because he had been loyal to Judge Webber. Although he did not personally observe Mumford's performance, lawyers had told Judge Zieba that Mumford was immature and that he displayed temper tantrums in court. Judge Zieba further stated that the backlog of cases before the court indicated that Mumford, the other referee, and Judge Webber had not performed effectively.

Under Ohio law, referees are appointed by the court. Ohio R.Civ.P. 53(A). The duties of a referee are described in Rules 53 and 75 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Under these rules, a referee has the power to hear any issues referred to him by the court, to regulate all proceedings before him, to subpoena witnesses, rule on the admissibility of evidence, swear and examine witnesses, and report to the court on the matters referred to him. The referee's report is not a final decision of the court. Rather, the parties have an opportunity to object to the report, and the court may then either adopt, reject or modify the report, hear additional evidence, return the matter to the referee with instructions, or hear the matter itself.

Several present and former referees of the Domestic Relations Court testified in depositions that their responsibilities are largely independent of the judges for whom they work. They do not have daily, face-to-face contact with the judges. At most, they may spend an hour or two per week consulting with the judges about the cases they are handling. They do not participate in court decisions about employment, funding, or other policy issues. They have separate offices, and are not privy to confidential materials in the judges' chambers.

II. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

In his motion for summary judgment, Judge Zieba contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford's claim for damages because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be terminated from his position as referee based on his political affiliations.

Judicial officers may be either absolutely or qualifiedly immune from civil liability for damages. A judicial officer is absolutely immune from liability for judicial acts within his jurisdiction. Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 106 S.Ct. 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985). However, where, as here, the judicial officer is being sued for administrative acts, not for judicial acts, absolute immunity does not apply. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). Under these circumstances, a judge, like any government official, may assert qualified immunity from liability.

A government official is qualifiedly immune from liability for damages to a plaintiff who claims that the official violated his constitutional rights if it was objectively, legally reasonable for the official to conclude that his actions were lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). This test requires a two-part inquiry by the Court. First, the Court must determine whether the law clearly established the right which the plaintiff claims that the defendant violated. If the law was not clearly established, then the official is qualifiedly immune from liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). On the other hand, if the law was clearly established, then the Court must proceed to the second part of the inquiry, and determine whether it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to conclude that his actions were lawful, in light of that clearly established law. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039.

A. Clearly Established Law.

A plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant's conduct violated clearly established law. Dominque v. Telb, 831 F.2d 673 (6th Cir.1987). While it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the official's precise actions have been held unlawful in the past, the unlawfulness of the official's actions must have been apparent under pre-existing law. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. In other words, "the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Id.

In this case, Mumford asserts that it was clearly established that the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution protected government employees from discharge based upon their political affiliation. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 110 S.Ct. 2729, 111 L.Ed.2d 52 (1990); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976). The Supreme...