Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06039/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06039-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILL D 

United St~~ ~r,.~~~ Appoahi 

NOV 2 S 1992 

ROBERT L, HOECKER 

PAUL KEAS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

THE CITY OF ELK CITY, OKLAHOMA; ) 

GUY R. HILTON, JR., Individually,) 

and as Mayor and Commissioner for) 

the City of Elk City, Oklahoma; ) 

BASIL WEATHERLY, Individually, ) 

and as Commissioner for the City) 

of Elk City; RAY DUFFY, ) 

Individually, and as Commissioner) 

for the City of Elk City; and ) 

GEORGE EASTER, Individually and ) 

as Commissioner for the City of ) 

Elk City, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 91-6039 

(D.C. CIV-89-1660-T) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

Before KELLY, Circuit Judge, and McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, 

and BROWN, Senior District Judge.** 

Paul Keas was sworn in as Ward 3 Commissioner of Elk City, 

* 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, District of 

Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-6039 Document: 010110149206 Date Filed: 11/23/1992 Page: 1 
Oklahoma on April 10, 1989. Under the City Charter of Elk City, a 

Commissioner is an elected officer who serves without compensation. Further, there are five Commissioners for Elk City, one of 

whom also serves as Mayor. 

Article II, § 8 of the Elk City Charter provides as follows: 

The Commission shall determine its own rules 

and order of business and keep a journal of 

its proceedings. It shall have the power to 

compel the attendance of absent members, may 

punish its members for disorderly behavior, 

and by vote of not less than four members, may 

expel a member for disorderly conduct or violation of its rules, but no member shall be 

expelled unless notified of the charge against 

him and given an opportunity to be heard in 

his own defense. 

Shortly after assuming office, Keas became involved in a 

sharp and ongoing political controversy with the City Manager and 

the Chief of Police of Elk City. Stemming therefrom, the Commission, acting pursuant to Article II, § 8 of the Elk City Charter, 

served on Keas a written "Notice of Allegations" of misconduct on 

his part and advised him that a special meeting of the Commission 

would be held to examine these allegations, at which time Keas 

could appear and defend himself. 

At the special meeting of the Commission Keas appeared with 

counsel. Affidavits from the City Manager and the Chief of Police 

were read into the record, to which Keas responded. At the conclusion of the hearing the four Commissioners voted to expel Keas 

from the Commission. 

Keas then brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against 

the City of Elk City and the four Commissioners, alleging that the 

-2- I 

Appellate Case: 91-6039 Document: 010110149206 Date Filed: 11/23/1992 Page: 2 
defendants, acting under the color of state law, violated his constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments when 

they expelled him from the Commission. Specifically, Keas alleged 

that the defendants deprived him of property and liberty interests, without due process of law, as required by the Fourteenth 

Amendment, and further, that the defendants violated his First 

Amendment rights. 

By answer, the defendants denied liability and subsequently 

filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted 

the motion and entered judgment in favor of all defendants. Keas 

appeals. We affirm. 

We believe that disposition of the present appeal is controlled by Mitchell v. King, 537 F.2d 385 (10th Cir. 1976). In 

that case, Mitchell, an attorney, was appointed by the governor of 

New Mexico to serve a six-year term on the board of regents of the 

museum of New Mexico. Members of this board served without pay. 

Without going into great detail, differences thereafter arose between Mitchell and the president of the board, and those differences then caused controversy between Mitchell and the governor. 

As a result, the governor removed Mitchell from the board of regents, citing Article V, § 5 of the New Mexico Constitution which 

provides that the governor "may remove any officer appointed by 

him for incompetency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." 

Mitchell then sued the governor, and others, in the United States 

District Court for the District of New Mexico under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, claiming that his rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated by the defendants acting under 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6039 Document: 010110149206 Date Filed: 11/23/1992 Page: 3 
the color of state law. On motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12 (b) (6), the district court dismissed Mitchell's complaint, 

holding that his removal from the board of regents did not deprive 

him of any federally protected property or liberty interests or 

violate any First Amendment right. 

On appeal, we affirmed the district court's dismissal of 

Mitchell's complaint. In so doing, Judge Barrett spoke for the 

court, with Judges Breitenstein and Doyle specially concurring. 

However, as we read the concurring opinions of Judges Breitenstein 

and Doyle, concurring opinions in which Judge Barrett concurred in 

part, Judges Breitenstein and Doyle concurred in the central holding of the panel as expressed by Judge Barrett, namely that under 

the circumstances described in Mitchell's complaint, he had no 

property or liberty interest in the position in question which 

entitled him to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that his removal 

as a regent was not violative of his right of free speech. * 

In short, under the rationale of Mitchell v. King, supra, the 

judgment of the district court must be affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

* The district court in Mitchell, having dismissed the federal 

claims, declined pendent jurisdiction. However, the district 

court did hold that Mitchell had no protected property interest in 

the office of regent by virtue of Article V, § 5 of the New Mexico 

Constitution, and on appeal we upheld that holding. In the 

instant case, the district court rejected Keas' contention that 

Article II, § 8 of the Elk City Charter violated provisions of the 

Oklahoma Constitution and that under the Oklahoma Constitution 

Keas had a property right in continuing as an unpaid City 

Commissioner. We are in accord with the district court's 

understanding of Oklahoma law that, if there was any conflict with 

provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, the charter provisions 

controlled. See Dunham v. Ardery, 143 P. 331 (Okla. 1914). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-6039 Document: 010110149206 Date Filed: 11/23/1992 Page: 4 
-5-

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. Mcwilliams 

Senior Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6039 Document: 010110149206 Date Filed: 11/23/1992 Page: 5