Case Title: CLARK v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF IND. SCH. DIST. NO. 89

Citation: 

Docket Number: 92128

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
CLARK v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF IND. SCH. DIST. NO. 89  CLARK v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF IND. SCH. DIST. NO. 89 2001 OK 56 32 P.3d 851 72 OBJ 1953 Case Number: 92128 Decided: 07/03/2001 Mandate Issued: 10/12/2001 LINDA D. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, Defendant-Appellee [32 P.3d 852] ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. II ¶0 In a trial de novo before the district court a tenured teacher challenged a school district's decision to terminate her services. She timely sought at the pretrial stage the recusal of the assigned judge for bias and partiality. The District Court, Oklahoma County, Daniel L. Owens, Judge, failed to rule on the disqualification issue and affirmed the dismissal. On appeal the teacher re-asserted her fundamental right to a fair trial by a neutral and detached judge and urged as reversible error the assigned judge's failure to address her recusal quest. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. On certiorari the teacher retenders her right to a hearing and ruling on her nisi prius disqualification quest. CERTIORARI IS GRANTED ON THE TEACHER'S PETITION; Linda D. Clark, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Pro Se Timothy M. Melton, The Center For Education Law, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma For Appellee. OPALA, J. ¶1 The dispositive issue on certiorari is whether the plaintiff-teacher is constitutionally entitled to reversal of an adverse trial court judgment. Although by an on-the-record quest for relief she had timely challenged [32 P.3d 853] the neutrality of the judge assigned to her cause, she failed to secure a ruling on her quest for his disqualification. We declare the trial judge's failure to rule on the challenge to his fitness as reversible error and answer the question in the affirmative. I THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION ¶2 The services of Linda D. Clark [Clark], a tenured teacher, were terminated by the Independent School District No. 89 of Oklahoma County [District] at its 30 March 1998 meeting. She challenged her termination by trial de novo in the district court. 1 Before the case came on for trial, Clark became an uncounseled litigant when her lawyer withdrew from the case.2 She represented herself both at the pretrial and trial stages. ¶3 At a 21 July 1998 hearing on Clark's petition for trial de novo the district court continued the trial to August 12. On July 28 Clark filed in the case two documents by which she sought disqualification of Daniel L. Owens, the judge assigned to her case. One of these papers, addressed to the assigned judge, asked that he recuse because of comments he had made in court during the July 21 hearing.3 The second document, by which the same relief was sought, was addressed to Chief Judge Niles Jackson, whose name was marked out. Written above it appears the name of Daniel Owens. The text of the second paper contains several adverse comments Judge Owens had allegedly made during the July 21 hearing.4 On 17 September 1998 Clark filed another request to disqualify the assigned judge. The record contains no disposition either of Clark's July 28 or of September 17 quests to secure the assigned judge's recusal. ¶4 After a trial de novoon 21 September 1998, the nisi prius court affirmed the District's termination of Clark's employment by judgment entered 29 September 1998. The Court of Civil Appeals [COCA] affirmed. Certiorari stands granted on Clark's petition. II THE COCA OPINION OVERLOOKS AND IGNORES THE TEACHER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A NEUTRAL AND DETACHED TRIBUNAL BY FAILING TO GIVE DUE DEFERENCE TO THE TEACHER'S LAW-PROTECTED OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE A RULING UPON HER CHALLENGE ¶5 Clark complains on certiorari that she was subjected to a trial before a judge whose neutrality she challenged below and who gave her no ruling on the quest for his recusal.5InIn her petition for certiorari and brief Clark reasserts her position that Judge Owens ruled in her case "with prejudice, bias, and without hearing all the evidence." She seeks reversal of that decision and retrial of her case because there were "serious infringements" on her "rights to a fair and impartial trial." COCA addressed the issue by (a) acknowledging that the record contains no ruling on her July 28 and September 17 disqualification quests, (b) determining that [32 P.3d 854] the September 21 judgment for the District implicitly denied the recusal quests and (c) stating that the teacher failed to follow Rule 156 disqualification procedures by her failure to present the recusal quest to the chief judge in the county and by filing it less than 10 days before the trial date.7 COCA concluded and pronounced there were neither allegations nor a showing (in the trial court or on appeal) that the alleged assigned judge's bias was of a degree sufficient to disqualify him. COCA ruled the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to recuse himself. ¶6 A fundamental requirement of due process is a fair and impartial trial.8 A neutral and detached judiciary is imperative to ensure procedural fairness to individual litigants9 and to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.10 Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.11 ¶8 By her July 28 recusal quest, Clark asserted that the assigned judge's partiality denied her a fair and impartial tribunal. Clark's constitutional challenge afforded her the right to a hearing on the issue she raised and a judicial resolution memorialized of record. The trial judge's failure to rule upon her quest to disqualify him deprived her of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments III THE ASSIGNED JUDGE'S FAILURE TO RULE ON THE TEACHER'S RECUSAL QUEST NOT ONLY DENIED HER A VALUABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BUT ALSO EFFECTIVELY CLOSED HER DOOR TO TRIGGERING FURTHER RELIEF QUEST UNDER THE RULE-PRESCRIBED RECUSAL PROCEDURES ¶9 District Court Rule 15, ¶10 The July 28 documents filed of record below constitute Clark's formal plea to recuse Judge Owens. ¶11 By failing to rule on Clark's formal quest for his recusal, Judge Owens impermissibly barred her from all further access to the relief afforded by the Rule 15 procedure. He hence impaired and effectively frustrated her efforts to secure the fundamental right to an impartial tribunal. Without his critical on-the-record ruling, she could neither proceed to the third and final Rule-15 stage of the nisi prius disqualification process (and re-present her recusal quest to the chief judge) nor seek relief in this court in a proceeding for a writ of mandamus. IV SUMMARY ¶12 The teacher was entitled to a hearing and a ruling on her constitutional challenge to the assigned judge's neutrality. Want of an on-the-record ruling upon this critical issue of fundamental-law dimension subjected her to a trial before a tribunal whose detachment stood challenged and clouded but judicially untested. She is hence entitled to another trial. ¶13 We accordingly grant certiorari upon the teacher's petition, vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for a new trial either before a judge who is unchallenged or before one found not to be disqualified. ¶14 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT