Shinault v. Cleveland County Bd. of County Com'rs

Decision Date26 April 1996
Docket NumberNos. 94-6318,94-6354,s. 94-6318
Citation82 F.3d 367
PartiesJerry SHINAULT, Plaintiff--Appellee/ Cross--Appellant, v. The CLEVELAND COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, a Political Subdivision of the State of Oklahoma; George Skinner, County Commissioner, as public officer in his official capacity, and in his individual capacity; Leroy Krohmer, Jan Collins, County Commissioners, as public officers in their official capacities, Defendants--Appellants/Cross--Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.Ct. No. CIV-93-690-R); David L. Russell, J.

Gary W. Gardenhire (Thomas E. Kemp, Jr. and Charles L. Broadway with him on the brief), Norman, Oklahoma, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Andrew W. Lester (Shannon F. Davies with him on the briefs), Lester & Bryant, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

After Jerry Shinault was dismissed from his position as Cleveland County District 2 road foreman, he sued the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioners George Skinner, Leroy Krohmer, and Jan Collins in their official capacities, and George Skinner in his individual capacity. Shinault brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his dismissal deprived him of liberty and property without due process, his right to equal protection of the laws, and his associational rights under the First Amendment. He also brought a claim for conspiracy to violate his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, as well as state law claims for malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all claims except the First Amendment claim. The court also denied Skinner's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Both sides appeal. Skinner appeals the denial of qualified immunity. All defendants appeal the denial of their summary judgment motion on the First Amendment claim. Shinault cross-appeals the grant of summary judgment on his due process, equal protection, and federal conspiracy claims. We find that we do not have jurisdiction over Skinner's interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to review any of the other claims. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.

Background

The facts of this case revolve around the 1986 and 1990 elections for the Cleveland County Board of County Commissioners. Prior to the 1986 election, Jerry Shinault and defendant Leroy Krohmer had been close personal friends. In the 1986 election, Krohmer lost his reelection bid for District 3 County Commissioner to Neil Steely (Krohmer regained his post in 1990). After the election, Shinault informed Krohmer that he had agreed to go to work for Steely. Krohmer became highly upset because he thought that Shinault had worked against him in the 1986 County Commissioner's race. The two have not been friends since that time.

In the 1990 election, Shinault ran against defendant George Skinner for District 2 County Commissioner. After Skinner defeated Shinault in the Democratic primary, he sought Shinault's support in the general election. Shinault agreed to support Skinner, and to that end Shinault built and hauled signs, provided transportation, and introduced Skinner to people around the county. After winning the general election, Skinner offered Shinault employment as the District 2 road foreman. Shinault accepted and began work in January 1991.

The very month that Skinner hired Shinault, Krohmer requested a criminal investigation of Shinault by the Cleveland County District Attorney's Office. Skinner was aware of this investigation. Seven months later, after the initial investigation cleared Shinault of any wrongdoing, Krohmer initiated a second investigation. Krohmer told Skinner that two citizens had complained that the driveway of a county employee had been paved using county equipment and materials. At the time, District 2 employees had just finished an oil and chip paving job for the Little Axe School District. Krohmer and Skinner drove past the school and discovered that the driveway of county employee James Bruesch had recently been oiled and chipped. In a subsequent meeting with Skinner, Shinault admitted that he was aware that county employees had worked on Bruesch's driveway and that he had been present during at least part of the project.

Skinner dismissed Shinault in September, 1991, for using county equipment and materials to pave Bruesch's driveway. The Cleveland County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Shinault for embezzlement of county property, a charge of which Shinault was later acquitted. Over the course of these events, Skinner issued various press releases concerning the investigation, criminal charges, and acquittal.

Shinault argues that his dismissal, the criminal charges, and the press releases were actually an underhanded attempt by the County Commissioners to discredit a past, and perhaps future, political opponent. In support of his interpretation of the events, Shinault claims that the equipment used to pave Bruesch's driveway was on loan to the school district, that the oil and chips were the property of the school district, and that the paving was done at the direction of a school district employee. He explains that Bruesch had allowed county road crews to use his driveway and adjacent storage area for thirty years. Over that time, county officials repaired Bruesch's drive using county equipment and materials without the county taking any punitive action against the responsible employees. Shinault also claims that another county employee used materials and equipment from the same Little Axe school project to pave his own driveway without being fired, criminally prosecuted, or made the subject of Skinner's press releases. Moreover, Shinault claims that shortly before the incident that led to his termination, he repaired the driveway of Blake Virgin,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Amos v. Maryland Dept. of Public Safety and Correctional Services
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 22 Septiembre 1997
    ... ... In addition, PHS uses Washington County Hospital as an adjunct medical care provider for medical ... ...
  • Armstrong v. Wilson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 20 Septiembre 1996
    ... ... (citing School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 ... ...
  • Winfield v. Bass
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 31 Enero 1997
    ...independent jurisdictional base. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2156-58; see also Shinault v. Cleveland County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 82 F.3d 367, 370 (10th Cir.1996) (recognizing that jurisdiction is controlled by the portion of the order from which appeal is taken and ......
  • Elliott v. Leavitt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 24 Enero 1997
    ...failed to show a genuine issue of material fact.... As to that question we lack jurisdiction."); Shinault v. Cleveland County Bd. of County Comm'rs., 82 F.3d 367, 370 (10th Cir.1996) ("The scope of [Mitchell ] appeals, however, is limited to 'purely legal' challenges to the district court's......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT