UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________
No. 96-50885

_______________________

MARK S. VOJVODICH,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
RALPH LOPEZ, Bexar County Sheriff, Individually and in Official Capacity,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________
No. 97-50175

_______________________

STEPHEN GARZA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
RALPH LOPEZ, Sheriff; CHAUNCEY SPENCER; BRIAN MENGES, Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (SA-95-CV-455 & SA-95-CV-622)

_________________________________________________________________ August 19, 1997 Before JONES, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has det ermined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

2 PER CURIAM: 1

In these consolidated appeals, Ralph Lopez, Chauncey

Spencer and Bri an Menges appeal the decisions by the magistrate
judge and district court to deny qualified immunity for the

actions that are the subject of this suit. Mark Vojvodich and
Stephen Garza are former employees of the Bexar County sheriff’s
department who filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that

th ey suffered adverse employment actions in violation of their

First Amen dment rights. Concluding that the appeal by Lopez,
Chauncey Spencer, and Brian Menges is frivolous, we affirm.

Garza was a deputy with the rank of Ca ptain. Garza alleges

t hat his transfer within the department, “letters of couns eling”

for unacceptab le conduct, Order of Suspension, and ultimate

di smissal were in retaliation for his political activities,
including his announcing his candidacy and campaigning for the

sheriff’s office.

Vojvodich was a deputy with the rank of lieuten ant.
Vojvodich alleges that Lopez r efused to promote him, delayed

payment for excess overtime, assigned him to less prestigious
duty and dismissed him in retaliatio n for affiliation with3

another political party and support of a com peting candidate for

sheriff.

Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunit y because

at the time that they took adverse action against Vojvodich and

Garza, the law was clearly established that a sheriff could not
take retaliatory employment action against his deputies based on
political activi ty or association unless the activity was
sufficiently disruptive. See Click v. Copeland , 970 F.2d 106, 111

(5th Cir. 1992); Vojvodich v. Lopez , 48 F.3d 879 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 169 (1995). Both appellees

raised fact issu es as to the political nature of their speech or
activity a nd as to whether the disruption caused thereby
justified the adverse employment actions against them.

Appellants do not raise any substantial arguments that
distinguish this case from the prior two opinions of this court

that conclusively decided the qualified immu nity issue against
him. In fact, these appeals appear calculated to prolong the day

of reckoning at trial, a day we trust the trial court will soon

establish. Because these appeals are frivolous and dilatory,
appellants are hereby put on NOTICE and ordered to SHOW CAUSE as

to why they should not be ordered to pay damages and costs to
appellees under F ED
. R. A PP
. P ROC

. 38. Appellants are ordered to
respond within 30 days of the date of this opinion and order.4 AFFIRMED; SHOW CAUSE ORDER ISSUED.