Potter v. Murray City

• Decision Date: 27 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. C-83-0174C.,C-83-0174C.
• Parties: Royston POTTER, Plaintiff, v. MURRAY CITY, a Municipal corporation, Calvin G. Gillen, individually and as Chief of Police of Murray City, Murray City Civil Service Commission, the Honorable Scott M. Matheson, Governor of the State of Utah, the Honorable David L. Wilkinson, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Utah, State of Utah and the United States of America, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

585 F. Supp. 1126

Royston POTTER, Plaintiff, v. MURRAY CITY, a Municipal corporation, Calvin G. Gillen, individually and as Chief of Police of Murray City, Murray City Civil Service Commission, the Honorable Scott M. Matheson, Governor of the State of Utah, the Honorable David L. Wilkinson, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Utah, State of Utah and the United States of America, Defendants.

No. C-83-0174C.

United States District Court, D. Utah, C.D.

April 27, 1984.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Dennis V. Haslam and Donald J. Winder, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff Royston Potter.

Allan L. Larson and H. Craig Hall, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants Murray City, Calvin G. Gillen, and Murray City Civil Service Com'n.

Paul M. Tinker, Deputy Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants Scott M. Matheson, Governor of the State of Utah, and David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen. of the State of Utah, and the State of Utah.

Brent D. Ward, U.S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, and Drake Cutini, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant The United States of America.

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTIONS

CHRISTENSEN, Senior District Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case involves a civil rights claim for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief by a former police officer of Murray City who alleges that the termination of his employment because of his practice of plural marriage violated his right to the free exercise of his religion as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, contrary to the provisions of 42 United States Code § 1983.

Monetary damages are sought against the City, its Chief of Police, and the Murray Civil Service Commission, and declaratory and injunctive relief is prayed for against the State of Utah and its Governor and Attorney General declaring Utah's laws against plural marriage void and enjoining their enforcement. Because of the claim that the enactment and retention of such laws were mandated by the federal Enabling Act as a condition for admission of Utah into the Union, the United States was joined as a party upon motion of the State.

This case is now before the court upon motions for summary judgment filed respectively by plaintiff, Murray City and the state defendants and a motion for judgment on the pleadings interposed by the United States. Following written briefing, and upon oral argument heard March 2, 1984, all pending motions have been submitted to the court for decision.

FACTS

The third amended complaint of the plaintiff Royston E. Potter, in the light of which the motions before the court must be decided, succinctly states the basic fact structure in substance as follows:

On September 15, 1980, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant Murray City as a police officer and took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Plaintiff holds a genuine religious belief, faith and commitment in the principle and practice of plural marriage (polygamy).

At all times material to this case plaintiff has had two wives, both of whom have borne a child or children with plaintiff and for whom he provides love, care, support and maintenance.

The children born of these relationships are not neglected nor are they deprived. Plaintiff's wives, with full knowledge, have consented to plaintiff's plural marriage.

On or about December 1, 1982, plaintiff was terminated as a Murray City police officer by the defendant Gillen, Chief of Police of Murray City, at the direction of and with the full consent and knowledge of the defendant Murray City. This decision was affirmed by the defendant Civil Service Commission on February 18, 1983.

Defendants Gillen, Murray City and its Civil Service Commission terminated plaintiff's employment because of plaintiff's religious beliefs and practices and particularly by reason of his plural marriage or cohabitation and for his failure to support, obey and defend Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Utah.

Aside from the contention of the defendants that there were other or additional reasons for the termination of plaintiff's employment as a police officer, there is substantial support in the record for the foregoing allegations. In reinforcement or supplementation of them, the parties have formally stipulated for the purposes of the presented motions the existence of the following facts:

On September 15, 1982, the plaintiff Royston E. Potter was actively practicing plural marriage.

The practice of plural marriage is the result of a good faith religious belief.

As of November 19, 1982, the plaintiff had two wives, both of whom have consented to this relationship.

The five children born of these relationships are not neglected or deprived.

On September 15, 1980, the plaintiff took an oath of office as a police officer wherein he agreed to support, obey and defend the Constitution of the State of Utah.¹

There are between 5,000 and 10,000 individual family members of polygamist families currently residing in the State of Utah.

There have not been more than twenty-five criminal prosecutions for polygamy in the State of Utah since 1952.

Plaintiff's religious beliefs are totally immune from state scrutiny.

Plaintiff's wives and children receive adequate care, love and attention and want for no necessity of life.

The Appeals Referee, Appeal Section, Industrial Commission of Utah, Department of Employment Security, in the Matter of Royston Potter's Application for Unemployment Compensation Insurance found, among other things, that the performance of Royston E. Potter as a public officer was exemplary, that his practice of polygamy did not affect his performance as such officer, that the county attorney had refused to prosecute the claimant, that the claimant had initiated legal proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of Utah's antipolygamy law through the courts; that the Murray Police Department's right to discharge the claimant for the conduct in question was not an issue before the department but that "the issue in willful misconduct cases ... is whether the State is justified, under the circumstances, in denying benefits for such conduct."

It was concluded by the Commission that "although the claimant's conduct may have justified his discharge, it is only disqualifying if it satisfies the three requirements set forth in ... the Utah Employment Security Act, and that the Appeals Referee is unable to make such a finding and it is, therefore, ruled the department correctly allowed benefits to the claimant."²

ISSUES

While rulings upon all of the issues enumerated may not be essential, depending upon the disposition of some of them, they all have been considered in the arguments addressed to the court and have had to be explored to afford assurance of full consideration on the case. Moreover, it has been found helpful to an orderly presentation of the entire problem and of possible assistance in a better understanding from the beginning of the relationship of the various parties to it, to discuss all of the issues in the following order:

I. What are the presumptions, burdens of proof and breadth of inquiry in view of them?

II. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar this suit or the relief, if any, to be awarded, as against the State of Utah and/or its Governor and Attorney General?

III. Do the uncontroverted facts establish a qualified immunity from liability for monetary damages in favor of the defendant Chief of Police and the City's Civil Service Commission because of a good faith reliance upon the constitutionality of their action?

IV. Does Murray City share any such qualified immunity and, if not, could it be liable for monetary damages as well as declaratory or injunctive relief because the dismissal of plaintiff was the result of the policy, custom or usage of the City?

V. Was the United States properly made a party and, if so, with what consequences?

VI. Is Utah's present law against plural marriage any less the established policy of the State, or any less relevant or material to plaintiff's constitutional claims, because of the "compulsion" of the federal Enabling Act as a condition of Utah's statehood or the resulting "irrevocable" nature of Utah's prohibition of plural marriage pursuant thereto?

VII. Has there been a showing of a "compelling state interest" in the prohibition of plural marriage with no less restrictive alternatives consistent with that interest reasonably available to accommodate plaintiff's practice of polygamy?

VIII. Must any compelling state interest in the prohibition of polygamy yield to the plaintiff's religious belief or his right of privacy, equal protection or other fundamental right by reason of an appropriate balancing of such rights with the interest of the State?

IX. Is this case ripe for final disposition by summary judgment?

X. In conclusion, what should the order of the court be in disposing of the motions before it?

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

I

It is well established that summary judgment may be granted only where there is no genuine issue of any material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The party opposing such a motion is entitled to have all facts, including rational inferences, reasonably viewed in the light most favorable to that party. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 618 F.2d 1373 (10th Cir.1980). Mere conclusions as distinguished from facts do not themselves authorize the approval or rejection of such motions. Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., supra, at 1380 n. 7; Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 544 F.2d 442 (10th Cir.1976); Stevens v. Barnard, 512 F.2d 876 (10th Cir.1975). And the existence of questions of law which it is the court's duty to decide, however difficult, do not warrant the denial of a motion for summary judgment...