Ramsey v. Leath
| Decision Date | 09 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-7683,81-7683 |
| Citation | 706 F.2d 1166 |
| Parties | 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2537 William C. RAMSEY and Johnny Ray King, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. James T. LEATH, Dan Chandler and George Daly, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Thomason & Russell, J. William Thomason, Bessemer, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants, cross-appellees.
Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman, Burr & Murray, C.V. Stelzenmuller, Irvin C. Porter, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellees, cross-appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before KRAVITCH, HATCHETT and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Ramsey and King initiated this action, with other plaintiffs, 1 in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama in January of 1978. Appellants were officers of the Irondale Police Department. Appellants alleged that the appellees Leath, Chandler, and Daly discriminated against appellants to abridge their rights under the first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution. When the incidents giving rise to this action occurred, Leath served as mayor of Irondale and Chandler and Daly were city councilmen. Specifically, appellants alleged that appellees demoted appellants from sergeants to patrolmen without probable cause to believe that appellants were guilty of acts or omissions which justified such disciplinary action. Appellants alleged that they were demoted because they belonged to a labor organization.
On the motion of appellees, the action was properly removed to the federal district court for the Northern District of Alabama. Appellees then filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that appellants brought the present action and a prior identical action, which was dismissed on August 18, 1977 on plaintiffs' motions, for the purpose of forcing Irondale to recognize the labor union as the collective bargaining agency for the police force. Appellees alleged that the appellants brought the actions maliciously and without foundation in order to harass and intimidate appellees. Appellees sought damages and attorneys' fees from the plaintiffs.
The parties filed numerous affidavits and depositions in the district court, divulging the following facts. On April 21, 1977, the Alabama Brotherhood of Law Enforcement Employees, Local 1312, notified the City of Irondale that it represented the police officers of Irondale. Mayor Leath first received notice of this representation on April 24, 1977, but disregarded it on the city attorney's assurance that the city had no duty to recognize the union.
On April 26, 1977, the city council held a meeting at which Chief of Police W.C. McSween recommended that the councilmen demote officers King and Ramsey from sergeants to patrolmen. Chief McSween told the council members that Sergeant King had failed to properly supervise a subordinate and that Sergeant Ramsey had violated a rule of the Irondale Police Department by organizing a meeting of all police officers without the consent of the chief of police. The entire city council voted in favor of the demotions. Chief McSween gave immediate written notice to both officers informing them of the action by the council and the reasons for their demotions.
The depositions and affidavits filed in this case demonstrate that there was a factual basis for the disciplinary actions taken against Ramsey and King. The council acted against Ramsey because he organized a meeting of the entire police force without the consent of the chief of police as required by police department rule. Prior unsuccessful efforts had been made by some of the policemen to meet with the city council concerning their problems. Chief McSween had informed Ramsey that he would ask the mayor and council to meet with the policemen, but such a meeting was never held. Instead, the city council continued to meet with just the police chief, in accordance with normal procedures, to consider problems of the police force. Unsatisfied with this procedure, Ramsey encouraged the other police officers to attend the regular April 5 council meeting and remain afterward for their own meeting. All but one member of the police force, including on-duty members, appeared at the April 5 meeting. The officers held this meeting without the chief's approval as required by the rules of the police department, which presumably had the legitimate purpose of ensuring that Irondale was not without police protection.
The council's disciplinary action against King arose from a different context. Very early on April 24, 1977, King was on duty with supervisory responsibilities over the other policemen. At about 1:00 a.m., King received a radio call from a subordinate, Boartfield, reporting that he was pursuing a traffic violator within the city limits. Soon Boartfield called King again, informing him that he was still in pursuit and reporting his location, which was now outside the city limits. King notified the next police department that Boartfield was chasing a car toward their jurisdiction and asked for assistance. King did not advise Boartfield to stay within the police jurisdiction, the city limits. In his chase beyond the police jurisdiction, Boartfield wrecked the patrol car. The unambiguous policy of the Irondale Police Department in effect at that time was:
To apprehend a minor traffic violator, the officer is not to chase the violator outside the police jurisdiction.
Based on these facts, the Irondale City Council found that Sergeant King had failed to properly supervise his subordinate and that Officer Ramsey had failed to follow departmental rules regarding meetings. The council accordingly unanimously voted in favor of Chief McSween's recommendations that they be demoted.
Appellants filed this suit contending that they were deprived of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States because they were demoted for engaging in unionization of the Irondale Police Department. They contended that the stated reasons for their respective demotions were merely pretextual, and that they did not commit the acts nor omit the duties which were made the basis of their demotions.
On appellees' motion for summary judgment, the district court reviewed the depositions, affidavits, briefs, and arguments of the parties. In the memorandum opinion of January 10, 1980, the district court concluded, "[t]he undisputed facts before the court demonstrate that the council acted April 26, 1977 on Chief McSween's recommendations for the demotions." Record at 122. The court noted that the depositions of both appellants and the other evidence in the file confirmed the misconduct of Ramsey and King which served as the grounds for their demotions. Although Ramsey and King had alleged that they believed their demotions were due to anti-union animus, they failed to present the district court with any evidence in support of those contentions. The court concluded, "The verified material before the court is completely lacking of other affidavits or exhibits submitted by plaintiffs evidencing impropriety on the part of the council in exercising its duty to discipline the police force when violations occur." Record at 123.
The court further noted that appellants had failed to submit any evidence in support of their contention that they were the subjects of continuing harassment because of their union activities. Finally, the district court concluded that the appellees' refusal to recognize the union did not give rise to an actionable claim since public employers are not required to recognize a union attempting to represent public employees. The court thus held that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Appellants appealed the grant of summary judgment, which this court summarily affirmed. While this court was considering the case, however, the parties agreed that the order appealed from was not appealable because appellees had an outstanding counterclaim for malicious prosecution. On petition for rehearing, this court was informed of the lack of jurisdiction. This court vacated the summary affirmance and dismissed the appeal.
The district court accordingly reviewed appellees' counterclaim. After additional briefing by the parties, the district court entered an order clarifying that the counterclaim was based on two distinct claims: (1) a malicious prosecution claim alleged to arise from the institution of an earlier action which was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs, and (2) an abuse of process claim connected with the present action. The court granted summary judgment in appellants' favor on both issues. The court concluded that the voluntary dismissal of the original action by appellants did not "satisfy as a matter of law the element of termination in a party's favor which is necessary to support an action for malicious prosecution." Record at 185. Because the instant action was identical to the original action, simply filed in a different forum, the court reasoned that the original action was still being pursued and appellees would have ample opportunity to challenge appellants' conduct if the district court's judgment in favor of appellees was affirmed.
The court found no basis in Alabama law for the abuse of process claim under the facts of this case. In Alabama, the court noted, an abuse of process claim is proper only when the action results in the issuance of some form of special process from the court, such as a writ of garnishment. A routine summons is an insufficient basis for an abuse of process claim.
In our review of dismissals of actions on summary judgment, we must determine whether the district court was correct both in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepard v. Byrd
...when a grand jury indictment has been returned. See W. PROSSER, THE LAW OF TORTS at 846 (4th ed. 1971). 24 But cf. Ramsey v. Leath, 706 F.2d 1166, 1169-70 (11th Cir.1983) (subjective claim of police officers that the city council's decision to demote them was motivated by anti-union animus ......
-
Plaisance v. Travelers Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 1:93-cv-1021-RLV.
...subjective beliefs do not create a genuine issue of material fact. Carter v. Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 585 (11th Cir.1989); Ramsey v. Leath, 706 F.2d 1166, 1170 (11th Cir.1983). See also, Earley v. Champion International Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir.1990) (collecting cases). Specifically......
-
Ungaro v. Desert Palace, Inc.
...(Wyo., 1981) (quoting Meadows v. Bakersfield Sav. & Loan Assoc., 250 Cal.App.2d 749, 753 59 Cal.Rptr. 34, 37 (1967)). See Ramsey v. Leath, 706 F.2d 1166 (11th Cir.1983); McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1414 The courtesy summons and information document request rested solely on the a......
-
Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology Intern.
... ... See Ramsey v. Leath, 706 F.2d 1166, 1170-71 (11th Cir.1983). Conversely, an involuntary dismissal resulting from plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery ... ...