Patterson v. Superintendent of Public Instruction

• Decision Date: 20 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 14117-9-III,14117-9-III
• Citation: 76 Wn.App. 666,887 P.2d 411
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 96 Ed. Law Rep. 762 Dennis PATTERSON, Appellant, v. The SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, State of Washington, Respondent.

Page 666

76 Wn.App. 666

887 P.2d 411, 96 Ed. Law Rep. 762

Dennis PATTERSON, Appellant, v. The SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, State of Washington, Respondent.

No. 14117-9-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3 Panel Three.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Publication Ordered Jan. 17, 1995.

Review Denied May 11, 1995.

Dennis Patterson, pro se

Christine O. Gregoire, Atty. Gen., Maureen E. McGuire, Asst. Atty. Gen., Spokane, for respondent.

THOMPSON, Chief Judge.

This appeal arises out of administrative and superior court proceedings which resulted in the temporary suspension of the teaching certificate of Dennis Patterson and the summary judgment dismissal of Mr. Patterson's defamation claim against the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Mr. Patterson contends the suspension of his certificate was not justified by his actions and a false public record was created during the administrative process. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1988, Mr. Patterson obtained a certificate to teach elementary school in Washington. From September 1989 to March 1990, he taught part time in the West Valley School District. During this period, he received two negative evaluations and resigned his position.

In May 1990, Mr. Patterson began the process of applying for and renewing applications for other teaching positions, including renewal of his application with Spokane's School District 81. He informed District 81 that he taught at West Valley. The application form authorized the District to obtain confidential references from previous employers. In May 1990, Mr. Patterson also asked West Valley to send him a copy of his recommendation.

In July, Mr. Patterson submitted an application to East Valley School District, but did not mention his employment at West Valley. He explained later that he omitted West Valley because his application would not have been considered without their recommendation and because at the time he applied, West Valley had not responded to his request for a copy of his recommendation.

District 81 received an evaluation of Mr. Patterson from West Valley in July. He was placed in the lowest 10 percent concerning instructional skills and classroom management On August 3, 1990, District 81 notified Mr. Patterson he would not be considered for the district's employment pool. In response, he met with the District's superintendent and asked to inspect his application file. His request was denied. An appointment with the assistant superintendent for personnel services was scheduled for August 23. However, following the meeting with the superintendent, Mr. Patterson went to the personnel office and told a clerk he wanted to verify that his file was up to date and check for the West Valley reference. An employee retrieved the file and confirmed the presence of the reference. While the clerk was distracted, Mr. Patterson took the file and left the premises.

in the lower 50 percent (but not lower 10 percent) in discipline, clarity of expression, flexibility and modeling appropriate behavior, in the upper 50 percent (but not upper 25 percent) in commitment and student relations, and in the upper 25 percent (but not upper 10 percent) in enthusiasm.

When Mr. Patterson met with District 81's assistant superintendent for personnel services on August 23, he was told to return the file. He did so. However, the West Valley reference form had been removed. In September, the District filed a complaint against Mr. Patterson with the Office of Professional Practices (OPP) of the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).

East Valley hired Mr. Patterson as a substitute for an overload classroom. However, when the assistant superintendent learned he had taught at West Valley but did not include it in his application, Mr. Patterson was dismissed. In February 1991, East Valley filed a complaint against Mr. Patterson with the OPP.

The OPP investigated both complaints and found that Mr. Patterson's actions constituted unprofessional conduct. OPP concluded he lacked the good moral character and personal fitness required to serve as a certificated employee in Washington schools. WAC 180-75-081. ¹ A proposed order to suspend The informal review officer for the SPI also concluded that Mr. Patterson lacked the good moral character and personal fitness required by WAC 180-75-081. A proposed final order suspending his certificate for 6 months was issued. Mr. Patterson appealed.

Mr. Patterson's certificate for 18 months was issued. Mr. Patterson appealed.

A full evidentiary hearing took place on January 13, 1992 before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ found Mr. Patterson (1) willfully omitted his previous employment with West Valley and (2) took into his possession and control the property of Spokane School District 81. The ALJ concluded Mr. Patterson's good moral character was sufficiently called into question, particularly with regard to his character and personal fitness to teach. A 6-month suspension of his certificate was ordered. Mr. Patterson appealed to the State Board of Education (Board). WAC 180-86-155.

Prior to the Board's review and entry of a final order, Mr. Patterson commenced a lawsuit against the SPI in Spokane County Superior Court. He alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), erroneous interpretation of the law, and arbitrary and capricious action beyond SPI's scope of authority. He also alleged the suspension of his certificate was not supported by the evidence and SPI's actions to suspend his teaching certificate constituted malice, libel, defamation of character and effectively destroyed his professional career. He requested an order declaring SPI's actions void and "equitable damages, costs and fees."

The Board entered its final order on July 24, 1992. It adopted the ALJ's findings of fact. It concluded, however, that Mr. Patterson's personal fitness had been called into question, rather than his good moral character. The 6-month suspension was affirmed.

SPI moved for partial summary judgment as to Mr. Patterson's Superior Court claim for damages, contending Mr. Patterson had not adequately answered discovery concerning Mr. Patterson's remaining Superior Court allegations were treated as an appeal of the suspension of his teaching certificate and a hearing took place on March 19, 1993. The final order of the Board was affirmed.

his alleged incidents of defamation and the statements made by SPI employees were privileged. The Superior Court granted the motion on the grounds Mr. Patterson had not made an adequate factual response to SPI's motion and, to the extent his brief and attachments contained statements alleged to be defamatory, they were privileged because they were made in connection with the official duties of the SPI concerning the investigation and processing of an administrative inquiry or in connection with administrative proceedings. Mr. Patterson's motion to reconsider was denied.

Mr. Patterson sought direct review of the Superior Court decisions with the Supreme Court. Direct review was denied. The matter was transferred to this court.

DEFAMATION CLAIM

Mr. Patterson contends the trial court erred in dismissing his damage claim because it arose from due process violations and the willful creation of a false public record and because there were disputed facts. He contends SPI does not "enjoy a privilege or have a duty to create a misleading false public record."

Nature of Claim. Mr. Patterson's pro se complaint alleged the actions of SPI constituted "malice, libel, [and] defamation of character". The trial court liberally interpreted his allegation as stating a defamation cause of action. As to Mr. Patterson's claim that damages arose out of due process violations, his complaint does not state a cause of action for damages based on due process violations, nor were facts submitted or legal authorities cited to support such claim during summary judgment proceedings. A litigant appearing pro se is bound by the same rules of procedure and substantive law as his or her attorney would have been had the litigant chosen to be represented by counsel. In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wash.App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993).

Pleadings Properly Considered. Mr. Patterson objects to the trial court's consideration of pleadings filed by an assistant attorney general who filed a notice of association in the case. Although Mr. Patterson objected to his association, he fails to show how he was prejudiced, especially when he did not serve his response to those pleadings on associated counsel. In addition, Mr. Patterson cites no authority to support his contention that the pleadings should have been stricken.

Standard of Review. In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, an appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Hiatt v. Walker Chevrolet Co., 120 Wash.2d 57, 65, 837 P.2d 618 (1992). A summary judgment is appropriate only if, after viewing all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court concludes there is no genuine issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56; Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982).

Prima Facie Case. When the defendant in a defamation action moves for summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case or a judgment in favor of the defendant will be granted. The elements of a prima facie case of defamation are falsity, an unprivileged communication, fault, and damages. LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wash.2d 193, 197, 770 P.2d 1027 (1989).

Summary Dismissal Appropriate. Mr. Patterson failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation. First, he produced no specific, material facts as to the falsity of any communication. Conclusory statements as to falsity are insufficient to create an issue of fact for the jury. LaMon, at 197, 770 P.2d 1027.

Second, Mr. Patterson raised no genuine issue of fact as to the...