Packett v. Stenberg, s. 91-2892

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before FAGG, BOWMAN and BEAM; BEAM
• Citation: 969 F.2d 721
• Parties: Bernard L. PACKETT, Appellant, v. Donald STENBERG, State of Nebraska, Appellees. Steven J. MOELLER, Appellant, v. Donald STENBERG, individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, State of Nebraska, Appellees.
• Docket Number: 91-3206,Nos. 91-2892,s. 91-2892
• Decision Date: 20 August 1992

Page 721

969 F.2d 721 Bernard L. PACKETT, Appellant,
v.
Donald STENBERG, State of Nebraska, Appellees.
Steven J. MOELLER, Appellant,
v.
Donald STENBERG, individually and in his official capacity
as Attorney General of the State of Nebraska,
State of Nebraska, Appellees. Nos. 91-2892, 91-3206. United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit. Submitted March 26, 1992.
Decided July 16, 1992.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 20, 1992.

Page 723

Thom K. Cope, Lincoln, Neb., argued, for appellant Bernard Packett.

Vincent M. Powers, Lincoln, Neb., argued, for Steven Moeller.

Roger P. Cox, Lincoln, Neb., argued, for appellees Stenberg and State of Neb.

Before FAGG, BOWMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Packett and Moeller appeal the dismissals of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. They were terminated from employment by a newly-elected Attorney General for the State of Nebraska, Donald Stenberg. Packett asserts a deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and Moeller asserts a deprivation of his rights to free speech and association under the First Amendment. The district court

Page 724

granted summary judgment in favor of Stenberg. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Bernard Packett had been an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Nebraska for over thirty years. Steven Moeller had been an Assistant Attorney General for five years. They were performing their jobs satisfactorily. Steven Moeller vocally supported Stenberg's opponent, the incumbent deputy attorney general, in a hotly contested race. Shortly after Donald Stenberg was sworn in as Attorney General, Packett and Moeller, among others, were terminated.

The former Attorney General had implemented written personnel policies which stated that personnel could be terminated only for just cause and would be entitled to notice and a hearing prior to termination. Stenberg rescinded those policies after he became Attorney General. There was some evidence that the Attorney General's office, under several former Attorneys General, had a longstanding unwritten custom of termination only for just cause. There was also evidence that the written policy by Stenberg's predecessor was finalized between the time of Stenberg's election and his taking office.

In granting motions for summary judgment against Packett and Moeller, the district court held that Packett and Moeller did not possess a property interest in continued employment as Assistant Attorneys General and thus their discharge without cause was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to the claim that Stenberg and the state violated their rights to free speech and association under the First Amendment, the court held that Packett and Moeller held policymaking positions and that patronage dismissals or consideration of party affiliation is not unconstitutional where the dismissed employee holds such a position. The court also held that Stenberg was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in any event.

On appeal, Packett asserts that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Stenberg for the reason that material issues of fact exist. He also assigns error to the district court's holding that he had no property interest in his employment. He further asserts that Stenberg is not entitled to qualified immunity and also asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to certify state law questions to the Nebraska Supreme Court. Moeller asserts that because a Nebraska statute protects political activities, the district court erred in holding that the politically-motivated firing of a policymaker is not unconstitutional. ¹

II. DISCUSSION

We use the same standard as the trial court in reviewing the entry of summary judgment. Stokes v. Lokken, 644 F.2d 779, 782 (8th Cir.1981). Summary judgment may be granted where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Additionally, all facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and the opposing party must be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Vette Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 612 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir.1980).

A. Packett

Packett first asserts that issues of material fact exist. The only conflicting evidence in the case involves the historical policies and customs of the Attorney General's office. This conflict is irrelevant to our holding. Because we find that Stenberg was entitled to rescind the personnel policies, the prior policies are of no consequence to resolution of the case.

Packett next asserts a property interest in continued employment. To have a property interest in employment a person must have a legitimate claim of entitlement. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S.

Page 725

564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). The existence of a property interest must be determined with reference to state law. Weeks v. State Bd. of Educ., 204 Neb. 659, 663, 284 N.W.2d 843 (1979). Typically, this interest arises from statutory or contractual limitations on the employer's ability to terminate an employee. Blankenbaker v. McCook Pub. Power Dist., 940 F.2d 384, 385 (8th Cir.1991). A property interest in employment can also be created by implied contract,...