Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02485/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02485-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 17, 2017*

Decided March 17, 2017

Before

        DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

       MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

       ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 16‐2485 & 16‐2660

MARK A. BROOKS‐ALBRECHTSEN,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA,

et al.,

       Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Southern District of

Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:15‐cv‐00786‐TWP‐TAB

Tanya Walton Pratt,

Judge.

O R D E R

Mark Brooks‐Albrechtsen applied for a job as a police officer with the

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. After being rejected he sued the chief of

police and other defendants claiming violations of the Constitution and federal statutes

in the selection process. On the defendants’ motion, the district court dismissed the

complaint with the explanation that it does not state a claim for relief. See FED. R.

                                                 

* We have agreed to decide these appeals without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately

present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R.

APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-2485 Document: 33 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pages: 4
Nos. 16‐2485 & 16‐2660    Page 2

CIV. P. 12(b)(6). That decision prompted these appeals, which we have consolidated for

decision.

For purposes here we accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint. See Carlson

v. CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 823 (7th Cir. 2014). Brooks‐Albrechtsen recently earned

a law degree and previously worked as a police officer in Ohio. In September 2014 he

applied to work as a police officer in Indianapolis. Four months later

Brooks‐Albrechtsen was notified by e‐mail that he had been “selected to proceed to the

next phase of the applicant screening process.” The e‐mail explained that a “conditional

offer of employment” depended on meeting several requirements, including approval

by the Civilian Police Merit Board.

But the plaintiff’s application ran into trouble when a detective called him after

vetting his name online. The detective asked about a lawsuit he had brought against

another former employer, Brooks v. Ohio State Chiropractic Bd., No. 2:12‐cv‐225, 2012 WL

1429386 (S.D. Ohio April 25, 2012), and a 2009 misdemeanor conviction for

impersonating a private police officer, Ohio v. Brooks, No. 25033, 2012 WL 2947830

(Ohio Ct. App. July 20, 2012). The conviction stemmed from an arrest for driving

100 mph in a 65 mph zone and then falsely telling the patrolman that he worked as a

security officer for a local hospital. See id. at *1–2. Earlier in 2014 the plaintiff had

persuaded the Ohio trial court to seal its records of the misdemeanor conviction, and he

accused the detective of violating an antidiscrimination provision in Indiana’s

expungement statute, IND. CODE § 35‐38‐9‐10(b)(3), by investigating him online.   

The Merit Board declined to hire Brooks‐Albrechtsen. He then sued in federal

court naming multiple defendants, including the detective who conducted the online

vetting, the chief of police, the City of Indianapolis, and Marion County.1 The plaintiff

alleges that he was turned down because of the sealed conviction and his lawsuit against

the former employer. The employment decision denied him due process and equal

protection, he claims, and also violated Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act,

                                                 

1 Indianapolis is located within Marion County, and the parties represent that the city and county

comprise a single legal entity because they have a unified government. To the contrary, the “City of

Indianapolis and Marion County are separate governmental entities.” Metro. Emergency Commcʹn Agency v.

Cleek, 835 N.E.2d 565, 567 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); see Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 770–71 (7th Cir.

2008). Consistent with their unified government, however, the city and county jointly operate the police

force that rejected Brooks‐Albrechtsen’s application for employment. See History of the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department, INDY.GOV, http://www.indy.gov/eGov/

City/DPS/IMPD/About/History/Pages/home.aspx (visited Mar. 17, 2017).

Case: 16-2485 Document: 33 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pages: 4
Nos. 16‐2485 & 16‐2660    Page 3

see 29 U.S.C. § 158(a). In granting the motion to dismiss (after twice allowing

Brooks‐Albrechtsen to amend his complaint), the district court first reasoned that

Brooks‐Albrechtsen does not state a due process claim because he lacked a property

interest in prospective employment with the police department. See Moore v. Muncie

Police & Fire Merit Comm’n, 312 F.3d 322, 326–27 (7th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that

applicant does not have property interest in prospective public employment without a

“‘mutually explicit understanding’ between the parties” (quoting Crim v. Bd. of Educ. of

Cairo Sch. Dist. No. 1, 147 F.3d 535, 545 (7th Cir. 1998))). Likewise, the district court

concluded, Brooks‐Albrechtsen’s claim that he was discriminated against based on his

litigation history amounts to a “class of one” equal‐protection theory, which the

Supreme Court has rejected as having “no place in the public employment context.”

Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 594 (2008); see Abcarian v. McDonald,

617 F.3d 931, 938 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[C]lass‐of‐one claims cannot be based on the highly

discretionary and individualized sorts of decisions that public employers must make

about their employees.”). And as for the plaintiff’s NLRA claim, the court concluded that

none of the defendants are “employers” as defined in that Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 152(2)

(defining “employer” to exclude “any State or political subdivision thereof”).

After this decision Brooks‐Albrechtsen filed sequential notices of appeal. The first

of these, which we docketed as no. 16‐2485, concerns the merits. In that appeal we

mostly agree with the district court’s reasons for dismissing the complaint and add only

a few observations. First, we reject the notion that Indiana law forbade the Merit Board

from considering the sealed conviction, a central premise of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. He

invokes a statute making it unlawful to deny employment on account of a conviction

that has been sealed under Indiana law, but that provision is irrelevant because the

plaintiff’s Ohio conviction records were sealed by an Ohio court. See IND. CODE

§ 35‐38‐9‐10(b) (“It is unlawful discrimination for any person to . . . refuse to employ . . .

any person because of a conviction or arrest record expunged or sealed under this

chapter.” (emphasis added)). What is more, the sealing of Brooks‐Albrechtsen’s

conviction is not absolute: The governing Ohio statute expressly permits sealed

convictions to be disclosed to “any law enforcement agency or any authorized employee

of a law enforcement agency . . . as part of a background investigation of a person who

applies for employment with the agency as a law enforcement officer.” OHIO REV. CODE

ANN. § 2953.32(D)(6).

That brings us to our only quibble with the district court’s decision. The court

dismissed Brooks‐Albrechtsen’s NLRA claim on the merits, reasoning that the

defendants are not “employers” as defined by the Act. Yet the federal district courts do

Case: 16-2485 Document: 33 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pages: 4
Nos. 16‐2485 & 16‐2660    Page 4

not have subject‐matter jurisdiction over claims that an employer engaged in an unfair

labor practice that violates Section 8 of the NLRA; those claims must be taken to the

National Labor Relations Board. See Smart v. Local 702 Intʹl Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d

798, 806 (7th Cir. 2009); NLRB v. Ill. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 988 F.2d 735, 738 (7th Cir. 1993).

Thus, the district court should have dismissed the NLRA claim without prejudice.

Finally, Brooks‐Albrechtsen argues for the first time on appeal that the Merit

Board was obliged to let him appeal its decision administratively, since, he maintains,

some police departments in other jurisdictions allow applicants to appeal their

disqualification from prospective employment. But whether other police departments

afford applicants more process than the Constitution requires is irrelevant. Absent a

property interest, no process is required. See Moore, 312 F.3d at 326; Crim, 147 F.3d at 545.

Moreover, we have no basis to grant the plaintiff’s request that we take “judicial notice”

of his summary of purported hiring practices for 30 police departments. See FED. R. EVID.

201(b); Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F.3d 622, 629 (7th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that Rule 201

mandates “indisputable” accuracy of facts subject to judicial notice).   

That ends our discussion of the merits. Brooks‐Albrechtsen’s second appeal, case

no. 16‐2660, was filed after he asked for, and received, permission from the district court to

proceed in forma pauperis in his first appeal. In granting IFP the district court told

Brooks‐Albrechtsen that he could proceed without paying any part of the appellate fees

but still would remain liable for those fees. That condition, which the plaintiff views as

unconstitutional, is the subject of his second appeal. But he did not need to file a second

notice of appeal to challenge that order. Cf. FED R. CIV. P. 24(a)(5) (providing that party

denied leave to proceed IFP on appeal by district court may renew motion in court of

appeals); see also Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1997) (construing Rule 24).

Thus, the second notice of appeal is duplicative. And, in any event, there is nothing

unconstitutional about requiring Brooks‐Albrechtsen to later pay the appellate fees

when he has the means to do so. See Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002)

(explaining that “everyone allowed to proceed in forma pauperis owes the fees and must

pay when able”).

We have considered the rest of Brooks‐Albrechtsen’s arguments—most of which

concern procedural matters—and none merits discussion. Accordingly, in appeal no.

16‐2485 we MODIFY the district court’s judgment to clarify that any claim

Brooks‐Albrechtsen may have under the NLRA is dismissed without prejudice, and as

modified the judgment is AFFIRMED. Appeal no. 16‐2660 is DISMISSED as

duplicative.

Case: 16-2485 Document: 33 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pages: 4