Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-85-02878/USCOURTS-ca10-85-02878-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

THOMAS L. CANNIZZO and 

REGINALD FRANZEN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

FILED 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JAN 201988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 85-2878, 85-2879 

(D.C. Nos. 84-2195, 84-2196) 

(D. Kansas) 

Defendant, 

WALLACE c. BOLEN and NATHAN 

TOLAR, in their individual 

capacities, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiffs/appellees filed this action asserting, among other 

contentions, a Bivens1 claim against the named defendants for the 

alleged deprivation of the plaintiffs' due process rights i n 

connection with their employment. The defendants claimed immunity 

and moved for summary judgment grounded on Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 

457 U.S. 800 (1982). The motion was denied, and the subsequent 

appeal is properly before us as a final judgment. Mitchell v. 

Forsyth, 472 U.S. , 105 S. Ct. 2806 (1985). We conclude that 

1Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

Appellate Case: 85-2878 Document: 010110024671 Date Filed: 01/20/1988 Page: 1 
because the plaintiffs could not assert an unquestionable right of 

access to the mails, they had no protected property interest to 

claim; accordingly, the defendants were entitled to a defense of 

qualified immunity. We reverse. 

Plaintiffs were employed by two individuals who had a 

contract with the Postal Service to deliver mail. As a part of 

their employment, plaintiffs were required to carry identification 

badges issued by the Service. These badges and access to the mail 

were necessary to the performance of plaintiffs' jobs. 

Upon separate occasions, defendants contacted plaintiffs' 

employers claiming plaintiffs had performed poorly in violation of 

the contracts between the employers and the Service. Without 

discussing the alleged infractions with the plaintiffs, the 

defendants denied plaintiffs further access to the mails and 

ordered the employers to retrieve the identification badges. 

Plaintiffs alleged that they lost their jobs as a consequence of 

defendants' actions. 

Plaintiffs originally filed this case against the Postal 

Service and the named defendants in their official and individual 

capacities. The trial court dismissed the claims against the 

Service and against the named defendants in their official 

capacities. Nevertheless, in reliance upon Board of Regents of 

State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), and Perry v. 

Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972), the court concluded defendants 

were not entitled to assert a Harlow defense in their individual 

capacities because they should have known plaintiffs had a 

reasonable expectation of a continued interest in the badges. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 85-2878 Document: 010110024671 Date Filed: 01/20/1988 Page: 2 
Defendants appeal that ruling claiming the plaintiffs' right 

to expect continued access to the mails is not settled; therefore, 

Harlow provides the basis for their claim of immunity. Since the 

complaints filed here were clearly grounded upon the defendants' 

actions of revoking the badges and denial of access to the mails, 

the defendants' contention is critical to resolution of the issues 

before us. 

The trial court's judgment can be affirmed only if it can be 

properly concluded plaintiffs' assertion of a right to expect 

continuation of their employment is correct. In Roth, the Supreme 

Court held that a person's right to assert a constitutionally 

protected property interest is dependent upon his ability to 

demonstrate the interest relied upon was more than a "unilateral 

expectation." Roth, 408 U.S. at 577. Plainly put, whatever 

plaintiffs' expectations were for continued employment, there had 

to be a factual justification for those expectations before 

plaintiffs can assert a constitutionally protected property 

interest in their jobs. Moreover, under Harlow, defendants are 

entitled to assert an immunity from liability unless their conduct 

violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 

of which a reasonable person would have known.'' Harlow, 457 U.S. 

at 818. 

Thus, in this instance, the nature of plaintiffs' right of 

access to the mails cuts two ways. First, the clarity of that 

right is a condition precedent to their ability to assert a 

protected property interest in their jobs. Second, unless 

plaintiffs can demonstrate they had an unquestionable right of 

-3-

Appellate Case: 85-2878 Document: 010110024671 Date Filed: 01/20/1988 Page: 3 
access to the mails, defendants are entitled to the Harlow 

defense. 

The right of the Postal Service, acting through the named 

defendants, to deny persons access to the mails 

Thus, whatever right of access plaintiffs 

defeasible. The question then becomes whether 

is uncontested. 

had was clearly 

that right of 

access was more than a ''unilateral expectation," or put precisely, 

whether plaintiffs' rights were such that they could not have been 

denied without a hearing. 

The defendants argue that this is an unresolved issue, and 

plaintiffs cite no authority to the contrary. Defendants liken 

this case to Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union Local 473 v. 

McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961), a case in which the Supreme Court 

held the Secretary of Defense could compel an employee of a 

contractor to surrender an identification badge even though the 

surrender led to the loss of employment. Moreover, the Court 

held, failure to grant the employee a predeprivation hearing did 

not violate the employee's due process rights. After establishing 

the validity of the power to revoke the employee's badge, the 

Court considered the effect of summary revocation and concluded 

where a private interest is subject to the "Executive's plenary 

power, it has traditionally been held that notice and a hearing 

are not constitutionally required." Cafeteria Workers, 367 U.S. 

at 895. 

Whether the Fifth Amendment would mandate a different result 

when the rights of the plaintiffs are concerned is not the point 

for us to decide, however. Neither are we concerned about whether 

-4-

Appellate Case: 85-2878 Document: 010110024671 Date Filed: 01/20/1988 Page: 4 
the Postal Service properly terminated the plaintiffs' right of 

access. What we are concerned about is whether the defendants are 

personally liable for their acts. In that light, even if we give 

plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt that their conduct did not 

justify denial of access to the mails, we nevertheless must 

conclude their right to process other than what they received is 

problematic. 

Translating this conclusion into the Roth and Harlow 

parameters, we hold that plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation 

for continued access to the mails that could be regarded a 

protected right in property. Moreover, although the issue is 

unresolved, it appears from Cafeteria Workers that the Postal 

Service can summarily deny employees of contractors access to the 

mails without a guaranteed right to predenial notice and a 

hearing. 2 Therefore, plaintiffs had no clearly established due 

process rights of which the defendants could be expected to have 

known. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to assert qualified 

immunity to defend against claims of their personal liability. 

The trial court should have granted summary judgment to the 

defendants. The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

2our inability to read Cafeteria Workers in the --:------------=--- underscores the problematic nature of plaintiffs' 

justifies application of Harlow. 

-5-

same way 

rights and 

Appellate Case: 85-2878 Document: 010110024671 Date Filed: 01/20/1988 Page: 5 
Nos. 85-2878, 85-2879, CANNIZZO and FRANZEN v. UNITED STATES 

POSTAL SERVICE, et al. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: 

I do not read Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 

473 v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961), as holding that the postal 

service can summarily deny these plaintiffs access to the mails 

without violating the Constitution. Even on this incomplete 

record, 1 Cafeteria Workers is distinguishable in at least two 

critical respects. First, in Cafeteria Workers, there was no law, 

rule or contract that the employee could be dismissed only for 

specified causes and after delineated procedures had been 

followed. Here, in contrast, plaintiffs point to § 19-125.7 of 

the Postal Contracting Manual, which provides that no employee of 

a mail contractor shall be denied access to the mail (or required 

to return an employee identification card) except for specified 

reasons, after a decision by the Regional General Manager and 

advance notice of the decision with an opportunity to submit a 

response. Plaintiffs assert that these procedures were not 

followed and that they lost their jobs as a result. Cf. Roman v. 

United States Postal Service, 821 F.2d 382, 386 (7th Cir. 1987) 

(postal service employees have property interest, and thus due 

process rights, by virtue of collective bargaining agreement 

between postal service and union). 

Second, Cafeteria Workers involved the operation of a 

military base, a government function to which the courts often 

1 This appeal is taken from a denial of summary judgment, based 

on a claim of qualified immunity. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 

U.S. 511, 524-30 (1985). 

Appellate Case: 85-2878 Document: 010110024671 Date Filed: 01/20/1988 Page: 6 
have accorded particular deference. As the Court in Cafeteria 

Workers pointed out, "[i]n that proprietary military capacity, the 

federal government has traditionally exercised unfettered 

control." 367 F.2d at 846. See also Serrano Medina v. United 

States, 709 F.2d 104, 107 (1st Cir. 1983) (citing Cafeteria 

Workers to support view that courts accord the military 

significant autonomy). The instant case involves operation of a 

mail truck, not the national security concerns attending 

permission to enter a military base as in Cafeteria Workers. 

Thus, Cafeteria Workers does not, in my view, control here. 

While the postal service might not be required 

constitutionally to give mail contractor employees such rights, it 

appears to have done so in this case. Having adopted rules and 

regulations which in effect assure that access will not be denied 

or badges lifted without notice and an opportunity to be heard, it 

has created a "property" interest recognizable under Perry v. 

Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972), and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 

U.S. 564 (1972). These individual defendants presumably have 

knowledge of the postal regulations. I therefore agree with the 

analysis in the district court's opinion and would affirm its 

denial of summary judgment. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 85-2878 Document: 010110024671 Date Filed: 01/20/1988 Page: 7