NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0110n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 9, 2007 No. 06-3683 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

DA WN R. MY ERS , P laintif f-App ellant,

v. J AMES W. DEAN and B OARD OF CO M M I SS I O N E RS OF PI CKAWAY COUNTY, OH I O, De fend ant s- App e lle e s.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

Be for e : S ILER , M OORE, a nd R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. KA REN NELSO N MOO RE , Ci rcuit Ju dge. I n Marc h 2004, both Plainti ff- Appellant Dawn R. My ers ( “My ers” ) and D efe ndant-Appe llee James W. Dea n (“D ean” ) soug ht the Republican nomination for the ele cted position of Clerk of the Pickaway County , Ohio, Court of Common P leas (“Cler k”). A t that time, Dea

n was the incumbent Clerk, and My ers se rved unde r his supervision as

a de pu ty c le rk . T he day

a ft e r D e an w on

the no min a tio n, he fi re d M y e rs . M y e rs fi le d s uit in s ta te court, c laiming that De an and his supervisory authority , the B oard of Commi ssioners of Pickaw ay County , had viol ated her free- speec h and due-proce ss rig hts under the fede ral a nd Ohio constitutions and had c ommitt ed var ious torts under Ohio state law . The de fenda n t s re m o ved the c ase to the United States District Court f or the Southern District of Ohio, which subsequently g rante d summary2

judgme nt in their favor . My ers now a ppeals that judg ment. Fo r t h e reasons set forth below, w e AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

I. BACKG ROUND The mate rial fa cts are undisputed. My ers, a Republican, wor

ked as a deputy cler k in the Clerk’s off

ice f rom 1985 until 2004. I n September 2003, upon the resig nation of t he ele cted Clerk, De an, a lso a

Re pu bli c an, wa s a

pp oin te d to fi ll the p os itionun til a ne w C le rk

c ou ld b e e le c te d in No ve mbe r 2 00 4. Th e Re pu bli c an c and idate fo r the po sit ion wa s det e rm ine d v ia a pa rt y pr ima ry he ld on Marc h 2, 2004. I n Dec ember 2003, both My ers and Dea n filed petitions to run for the Republica n nomi n a ti o n . So o n

th e r e a f te r , D e ano f

f e r e d to r e im b u r s e M y e r s f

o r an y e xp e n s e s th a t s h e had incurre d in seeking the nomination, if she would withdrawfrom the rac e. My ers r ejec ted the off er. Duri ng th e ensuin g c ampa ig n, My e rs and De an r e fr a ine d f

ro m me nti on inge a c h o the r i n lit e ratur e or

duri ngpu

bli c a pp e ara nc e s, and bo th urged th eir c ow or

ke rs in t he Cle rk ’s of

fi c e to

rema in neutral. Dea

n won t he primary and, the following day , asked for My ers’ s resig nation. When My ers r efuse d to resig n, Dea n fired he r, admitting t h at h er perf ormanc e wa s adequate but noneth e le s s ma in ta in in g th a t h e c o u ld n o t w o r k w it h h e r an y mo r e . D e an c o n c e d e s th a t he fire d My ers at least in part bec ause she had run a g ainst him for the Clerk position. On J une 25, 2004, My ers sue d the def endants in Ohio state c ourt, asser ting c laims under the First and F ourtee nth Amendments to the Unit ed S t ates Constituti on as we ll as various state- law

c a us e s o f a c tio n. Th e de fe nd ants re mov e d th e c a se to the fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt , w hic h s ub se qu e ntl y gra n t eds u m m ary

j u d gm en t i n t h ei r fa v o r on al l o f My er s ’s cl ai m s . M y er s n o w ap p ea l s t h at ru l i n g.3 II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review Sum mary jud g me nt is ap pr op ri a te “ if the ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs to i nte rr og a tor ie s,

and a dmi ssi on s o n f

ile , to g e the r wi th t

he a ff ida vit s, if any , s ho w that th e re is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any materia l fac t and that the moving party is entitled to a j udg ment as a matter of law .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6( c ); se e als o Ce lot e xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 4 77 U. S. 3 17 , 3 22 -2 3 ( 19 86 ). The mov ingpa rt y bear s the burden of

showing the abse nce of any g enuine issue of material f act. Plan t v . M

or ton In t’ l, Inc. , 212 F.3d 929, 934 ( 6th Cir. 2000) . Once the movant has satisfied its burde n, the nonmoving party must produce e vidence showing that a g enuine issue r emains. Id. Th e c ourt mus t c re dit a ll e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y the no nmo vin g pa

rt y and dr aw a ll j us tif

ia ble infere nces in that pa

rty ’s favor

. Id. The nonmovant must, howeve r, “do more than simply show that there is some metaphy sical doubt as to the mater ial fac ts.” Ma tsu sh it a El ec. Indu s. Co. v . Ze nit h Radio Corp. , 475 U. S. 5 74 , 5 86 (1 98 6) . Summa ry jud g me nt i s p ro pe r w he n th e no nmo vin g pa rt y has had a dequate time for discove ry and y et “f

ai l s t o make a

showingsufficie nt to establish the exis tence of an e lement essential to that par ty ’s ca se, and on which that par ty will bear the burden at trial.” Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322. We r eview a district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt de novo. See, e .g. , Sp e nc e r v . B ou c ha rd , 449 F.3d 721, 727 ( 6th Cir. 2006). B. M ye r s’ s F ir stAm e ndm e nt Cl aim My ers c laims that Dean’ s te r mi n a tion of her e mploy

ment violated her

First Amendme nt rig ht to r un for political of

fice

. The district cour

t found, howeve r, that this court’s holding in Carver v. De nn is , 104 F.3d 847 ( 6th Cir. 1997), forecloses My ers’ s First Amendment claim. My ers now urg es us to disti ng uish, lim it, or overr ule Carver

.4

The fa cts of Carver

are near ly

identical to those of the instant c ase. D enise Car ver (“Car ver” ), a de puty

cler k and at- will employ ee of a Te nnessee county

court, a nnounced that she planned to run in the ne x t election ag ainst Mildred Dennis (“Dennis”) , the county cler k and Carve r’s

su pe rv iso r. 10 4 F .3 d at 84 8. Th e ne xt d ay , De nn is la id of f Carv e r, wh om s he re pla c e d o ne mon th la te r. De nn is c on c e de d th a t sh e wo uld no t ha ve fi re d Car

ve r ha d Ca

rv e r n ot s ta te d h e r i nte nti on to run ag ainst Dennis. Carve r sued De nnis, claiming a First Amendme nt violation. The district cour

t gr anted summ ary judgme nt in Dennis’s favor, finding that Carver was fir ed fo r h e r p oli tic a l act iv ity , n ot f or he r p oli tic a l v ie ws , an d

t h at h er Fi rs tAm en d m en tri gh tt o en gage in s uc h a c tiv ity

wa s o utw e ig he d by De nn is’ s int e re st in pr e se rv inga via ble wo rk inge nv ir on me nt i n the cler k’s office

. See id. On a

pp e a l, a pane l of this c ourt c on sid e re d “w he the r . . . a de pu ty c ounty cler k who was an at-will employ ee . . . ha d a F irst Amendment rig ht to run ag ainst the incumbent clerk in th e n e xt e le c ti o n an d s ti ll r e ta in h e r jo b , ” an d an s w e r e d in th e n e g a ti v e , e mp h a s izi ng that Carver ’s dismissal was motivated solely by h er candida cy

for he r boss’s position and not by her “political belief

s or af filiations”—that it wa s, in othe r words, “not a dismiss al based on politics at all, except to the extent that running for public office is a political exercise in its broad sense .” Id. at 849-50. Ac cording ly , and bec a u s e “ th e [S upreme ] C ourt has neve r re cog nized a fundame ntal rig ht to express one’s political views throug h candida cy ,” id. at 850-51, the Carver court he ld that “no

rea ding o f th e F ir s t A me n d me n t r e qu ir e d D e n n is to r e ta in Ca r v e r a f te r Ca r v e r an n o u n c e d

her intention to run ag ainst Dennis for D ennis’s off ice.” Id. at 853. My ers a rg ues that the Carver

ho ldi nga pp e ars inc on sis te nt wi th a F ir st A me ndme nt r ig ht t o support the candidate of one ’s choice . I n essenc e, Carver established an exception to that g ener al

ru le fo r c ases in whi c h th e e mpl oy e e he rs e lf is a c and idate , w iththe re su lt t hat an e mpl oy e e in5

My ers’ s position is protec ted from reta liation f or supporting any

candidate oth e r th an he rse lf . As

many of our sis te r ci rc uit s hav e he ld, ho we ve r, “ [d]isc ipl ina ry a c tio n d isc oura g inga

c and idate ’s bid for e lective of

fice repr esent[s] punishment by the state ba sed on the c on te nt of a c ommunicative ac t protec ted by

the [F]irst [ A]mendment.” Finkelstein v. Bergna , 924 F.2d 1449, 1453 ( 9th Cir.) (empha sis added) ( internal quotation ma r k s a n d b r a c kets omitted), cert. de nied , 502 U.S. 818 (1991). Se e als o Stiles v. Blunt , 9 12 F .2 d 2 60 , 2 65 (8 th C ir . 1 99 0) (r e c og nizi ng“ the ri g ht t o r un fo r p ub lic office ”), cert. de nied , 4 99 U. S. 9 19 (1 99 1) ; Flinn v. Gordon , 775 F.2d 1551, 1554 ( 11th Cir. 1985) (“[H]e cer

tainly had a c onstitut ion al ri gh t t o ru n for of fice and to hold office once e lected . . . .” ), cert. de nied , 4 76 U. S. 1 11 6 ( 19 86 ); W ashington v. Finlay , 664 F.2d 913, 927- 28 (4t h C i r. 1981) (r e c og nizi ng “ [t]he [F ]ir st [A]me ndme nt’ s pro te c tio n of the fr e e do m of as so c ia tio n an d of the ri g hts to run for of

fice , have one ’s name on the ballot, and pr es en t o n e’ s views to the elec torate” ), c e rt. denied , 457 U. S. 1 12 0 ( 19 82 ); Newcomb v. B rennan , 558 F.2d 825, 829 (7th Cir.) (holding that the “plaintiff ’ s in te r e s t i nr

u n n in g f o r Co n g r e s s an d

th e r e b y e xp r e s s in g h is p o li ti c a l v ie w s w it h o ut interfe renc e fr om state offic ials . . . lies at the core of the values protec ted by the First Amendme nt”), cert. de nied , 4 34 U. S. 9 68 (1 97 7) ; Magill v. Lynch , 560 F.2d 22, 27 (1st Cir. 1977) (“It appea rs that the g ov e rnme nt m ay

pla c e lim its on

c a mpa igni ng by

pu bli c e mpl oy e e s if t

he lim its su bs tan tia lly

servegovernm ent i nterests that are i mportant enough to outweigh the employ ees’ First Amendment rig hts .” (e mphasis added) ), cert. de nied , 434 U.S. 1063 (1978). Notwithstanding the streng th of My ers’ s argument and other circ uits’ holdings, we a

r e b ound b y Carver

. See U

nited States v. Newsom , 4 5 2 F

. 3 d 5 9 3 , 6 0 7 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ; Un i t ed States v. McD aniel , 398 F.3d 540, 549 n.7 (6th Cir. 2005)

. We the ref ore AFF I RM the d i s t ri ct court’s jud g me nt.