## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 2953 P AUL K. O GDEN , P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. J AM ES A TT ER HOLT, C AROL J. M IHA LIK, and the I NDI ANA D EPART MENT OF I NS URANC E , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:08- cv-00369-JM S -D FH

—Jan e E . M agnu s- Sti ns on, Magis trate Judg e.
A RGUED A PRI L 13, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 18, 2010

Befo re W I L L I A MS, S YKES, an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, C ircu i tJudg e . O ra l arg u m en t h as n ar ro w ed th is appe alt o a s i ng l e i ss ue : Di d the C om m i ss i o ne r o fthe I nd i ana Depa rtm ent o fI nsurance and his Chie fDeputy violate Paul Ogden’s f re e- speech r i ghts w hen they requ ired h im to resi gn as m an ager of the D ep art m en t’s T itle Ins u ra n c e D i v i s ion ? O gd en w as forc ed ou t o f h is posi ti on a fterwri ti ng a m em o to the Com m i ssi oner2 N o. 09

- 2953

cr i ti ci zingthe pe r f o r m ance o fhi s Chi efDe put y a nd ask i ng that the Tit l e I nsurance Divi si on be re m ove d fr om her contr ol

. H e t h en sued the Com m i ssi oner, the Ch i ef Dep uty, and the Dep ar tm ent o fI nsurance clai m i ng tha t hi s me mo wa s p r o t e c t e d s pe e c h a nd h i s f or ced re si gnati on vi ol ate d hi s ri ghts und er the F i rs t Am endm ent. The dis tr i ct c ourtente re d s u m m ar y j ud gm ent for the de fe nd a nt s a nd Og de n a pp e a l e d. W e a ffi r m. Og de n’ s c o mpl a i nt s ab o utthe De pu ty Com m i ssi onerand hi s r equest f ora departm ental re or ga n iza tio n w er e m ad e in th e p er for m an c e o f h is profess ion alduti es as m anage r ofthe Tit l e Insurance Divi si on. Because he was speak i ng as a gover n m ental em plo ye e an d n ot a ci ti zen when he w ro te the m em o, un d er Garcet t iv. Ce b al l os , 5 47U. S

. 4 10 ( 20 06 ) , the p ro te c tio n s o f th e F irs t A m en d m en t a re n otim p lica te d

.

I . B a c kg r o und I n Nov embe r 2 00 6 Pa ulOgd en w as hi r ed as the m anage r ofthe new l y c re ate d Ti tl e Insurance Divi si on in th e In d ian a D ep ar tm en t o f Ins u ra n c e. T h e T itle I ns ura nc e D ivi sion w a s nest led w ithin th e D ep artm en t’s Consu m er Pro tect i on Un i t, headed up by Chi efDeputy Comm i ss i o ne r Ca r o l M i ha l i k

. J ames Att erho l t was the Com m i ssi onero fI nsurance an d i n that capaci ty w as re sponsibl e f or the enti re Dep ar tm ent of I nsurance. A fter tak i ng the r eins ofthe Tit l e Insurance Divi si on, Ogden ver y qui ckl y b ega n to r ese nt M i hal i k’ s m anage m ent s tyl e; he thou ghts he was e m o ti o na l l y e r r at i c, f o r g et ful, a ndN o. 09

- 2953 3
to o e as i l y di st r ac te d by tr i vi almatt er s. He b eg anwor k i ng ar ound M i hal i k b y r epor ti ng di re ctl y t o A tte rho lt on at l e a s ts o me D i v i s i o n m a t t e r s , a p r a c t i c e w h i c h O g d e n c l a i ms At t e r ho l te nc o ur a g e d. On Septem ber14 , 2 00 7, Ogden inf or m ed A tte rho l t that he was p l an ni ngt o s ubmi t a f o r m alr eque sttha t th e Tit l e I ns ur a nc e Di v i s i o n b e r e mov e d fr o m t he Co ns umer P ro te c tio n U n it; O gd en an d A tt er h olth ad ap p ar en tly disc ussed this possibi l i ty previ ousl y. That s am e day Ogden m et w i th r ep re senta ti ves ofthe St ate Per sonnel D i vi si on to fi l e a f or m al com pla i nt aga i nst M i halik. In pa r t i c ul a r, Og de n c l a i med tha tMi ha l i k( 1 ) fl o ut ed Pers onnelDiv i si on r egul ati ons on hi ri ng; ( 2) m i sused funds di r ec te d f o r the Ti tl e I ns uranc e Di vi si o n; a nd ( 3) f ost er ed a host i l e w or k envi ro nm ent. The P er sonnel Divi si on i nfor m ed Ogden that an i nvest i gat i on would be o pen ed an d th at he sh o ul d g athe r any rel ev an t i nf o r m at i o n. Thr ee day s l at erOg denwro te a l en g th y mem o r an dum to A tte rhol t, wh i ch Ogden described as a “ f or m alr equest to have the Ti tl e In su rance Di vi si on r em ove d fr om the Consum erPro tection U ni t. ” In the m em o Ogden outl i ned 35 r eas ons i n supp or t o fhi s r eor gani zati on r eque st
. Vi r tu al l y a l l o fthe se r ea so ns i nv o l ve d a l l eg at i o ns th at M ihali k w as incom p e t e n t or corrup t. O gd en ’s m em o re p ea ts m any o fthe al l ega ti ons he m ade thr ee days e ar l i erto the P ersonnelDiv i si on, but, i m port antl y, the m em o neve r re fer ences that f or m alco m pla i nt o r ask s that M i ha lik be di sci pli ned i n any w ay. One of Ogde n’ s fi na l bul l etpoi nt s i n the m emo st at es : “I fwe atthe4 N o. 09

- 2953 Tit l e Di vi si on a re r equi re d to continue und erM s. M i ha l i k ’ s s up e r v i s i o n, the s ho r tt e r m i mpa c twil l be a m ar k ed dec l i ne i n mor al e a nd pr o duct i vi tyo fthe Di vi si o n. The l o ngt er m i m p ac t wi l l b e th ate m pl o y ee s o fthe Divi si on wil l l eave and the Divis ion m ay have to be d isb an d ed .” A few hours afterA tte rho l t r ecei ved Ogden’s m em o, he s um m o ne d Ogde n t o a meet i ng . M i ha l i kwas pr es en t w i th A tte rho l t a t thi s m eetin g, an d Ogd en was i nfo rm ed that he had two c h oi ces: he c oul d ei therr esi gn o r be fi r ed. Og denwas to l d tha t he ha d b ee n “ o uto fl i ne , ” butno othe r expla nati on f orthe re si gn- or -b e- fi re d or der was o ffer ed. Og denw as gi ve n n o o ppo r tu ni tyt o de fen d hi m se l fa g ains t th e ch ar ge th at hi s m emo ha d b ee n “ o ut ofl i ne. ” H e cho se re si gnati on o verte rm i nati on a nd si gned a “ vol untary” re si gnati on l ett erso thathe c oul d keep hi s a c c r ue d v a c a t i o n t i me a nd a v o i d b e i ng pl a c e d on In d ian a’s “d o n oth ire ” list

. Ogde n the n s ue d Att erho l t, M i ha l i k, a nd the De par tment ofI nsurance i n I nd i ana s tat e co urt, rai si ng a hosto f sta te cl ai m s ( i ncl ud in g “ w h ist le-b low in g,” u nj ust ter m i nati on, and i ntenti onali nfl i cti on o fem oti onal dist re ss ), a s w el l as a cl ai m under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 f or v i o l a t i o n o fh i s F i r s tAme n d me n t r i g h tt o fr e e s p e e c h

. He al so ass er ted a du e- proce ss cl ai m , the p re ci se nature o f w hi ch h as b e e n the s o ur c e o fa f a i r a mou nto fc o nfus i on d u rin g t h is litig at ion an d req u ire s fu rt h er co m m en t. O gd en ad va n c ed h is § 19 83 cla im in C ou n t V II of h is co m pl aint, whi cha l l eg ed a f r ee - spe ec h v i o l at i o n b ut sai d n o thingo fdu e p r o c e s s . Og de n’ s du e - pr o c essN o. 09

- 2953 5

I n a c c or dance w ith the pr ovi s i ons of28 U. S. C. § 63 6( c ) an d 1 R ule 73 ofthe Federa l R ules ofCivil Procedure, the parti es con sente d to h av e a m ag istrate jud g e con d u ct all p ro ceed ing s in the cas e. al l ega ti ons w er e l odged e x cl usi vel y in Count VI I Io f hi s co m pla i nt, but that count i s no t e nti re l y c lea r as to w hetherthe due-pro cess cl ai m so und s in sta te or fed er al la w (or b ot h ). In rele v a n t p ar t, C ou n t V III s t a t es: “T he du e proc ess p rovide d to Ogd en f all s short ofm eet i ng ev en the r educed standard r equi re d fo r at w il l em p loyees un d er I nd iana law , the G overn or’s Ex ecuti ve Order, and the I nd i ana a nd Fe deral Consti tuti ons. ” But Count VI I Im ake s no m enti on o f§ 1983

. The defe nd ants re m oved the ca se to federa l co urt, obs er vi ng i n thei r noti ce o fr em ova l thatOgden was b r i ng i ngb o tha Fi r stAm en dm en t cl ai m a nd a federa l due-pr oce ss cl ai m under § 1983

. The m agi str ate j ud ge assigne d to han d le this case ap p ar en tly r ead Ogd en ’s co m pl ainti n the s ame waydur i ngthe c ou rs e o fthe proce edi ngs bel ow. So w hen the m agi str ate j ud ge rul ed on 1 th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t, s he addr es sed tw o q ue stions: w he th er A tterh olta nd M i hal i k had vi ol ate d ei therOgden’s fre e- speech r i ghts orhi s due

- pr o ce ss r i g ht s unde r the F eder alCo ns ti tu ti o n. The j ud ge gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent f or the defendants o n b o th g r o u n d s a n d r e ma n d e d th e r e ma i n i n gs t a t e c l a i ms backto the I nd i ana co urt. Ogden then fi l ed t h i s a pp eal

. Based o n the proce edi ngs i n the dist ri ct c ourt, hi s a pp eali nitial l y a pp ear ed to6 N o. 09

- 2953

en co m pas s fede r alfr ee - spe ec h and due

- pr o ce ss i ss ue s. But i n hi s r e pl y b r i e f, a nd a g a i n a t o r a l a r g ume nt, Ogden to ld u s t h at h is d u e-p r oc es s c laim aro se ex c lu siv ely unde r I ndi an a l aw. Acco r di ng l y, the o nl y i ss ue f o r us i s whether the m agi str ate j ud ge p ro perl y g ra nted s ummar y j ud g men t f o r the de fe nd a nt s o n Og de n’ s F i rs t Am e n d me n tc l a i m.

I I . Discussi on W e r e v i e w a gran to fs ummar y j ud g men tde novo , c onst rui ng al l f acts i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o O gd en and draw ing allreason able inference s in his f avor. R eget v . City of L a C rosse, 595 F.3d 691 , 695 (7th C ir. 2010). To e st ab l i sha pr im a facie c as e th athi s F i r stAm en dm en t f re e- speech r i ghts w er e v i ol ate d, Ogden m ust fi rs t show that he engag ed i n const i tuti onal l y pr ote cted s peech an d th at th is s p ee c h w as a m ot iva tin g fa c to r in h is d ism iss al. Va le ntino v. Vill. of S. C hi. Heights , 57 5 F
. 3d 664, 670 (7th C ir. 2009). T h e S u p r e me C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n G arce tt i g o ve r ns the an a l ys is of w h et h er O gd en ’s m em o is c on st itu tio n ally p ro te c te d sp e ec h . Th e Su p re m e C ou rtreit er at ed in G arce tt ithatpubli c em plo yer s, l i ke pri vate em plo yer s, ar e per m i tte d to exer ci se a s ign ifi cant deg re e o fco ntro l ove r thei r em plo yee s’ words and act i ons. 547 U
. S. at41 8- 19

. N o ne th el es s, pub l i c empl o y ee s r emai n c i ti ze ns , a nd as such “[ t] he Fi rs t A m en dm ent l i m i ts the abi l i ty o fa pub l i c empl o y ert o l ev er ag e th e empl o y m en t re l ati onshi p to re str i ct, i nci dental l y o r i ntentio nal l y,N o. 09

- 2953 7 the l iber ti es em plo yee s enj oy i n thei r capaci ti es as pri vate ci ti zens. ” Id

. at 41 9. Acco r di ng l y, “[ s] o l ong as em p loyees are spe aking as c it izen s abou t m atters ofpub l i c co ncer n, theym ust f ace onl y those speec h re st ric ti ons that ar e nec ess ar y forthei r em plo yer s t o oper ate effi ci ently and effecti vel y. ” Id. Bu t the Cou rt hel d that “w hen publi c em plo yee s m ake st ate m ents pu rs uant to thei r offi ci alduti es, the em plo yee s ar e not spe ak i nga s ci ti ze ns f o r F i r stAm end m en t pur po se s, a nd th e Con st i tu ti o n do es no t i ns ul at e th ei r co m m uni ca ti o ns from em plo yerdi sci pli ne. ” Id

. at 42 1. As th e C ou rt expla i ned: “Un derly in g o ur ca ses has been the pr em i se th at w h ile th e F irs t A m en d m en t in ve st s p u b lic em plo yee s w i th ce rt ai n ri ghts, i t doe s no t e m pow erthem to const i tuti onal i ze the e m plo yee gr i evance . ” Id

. at42 0 (qu otation m arks om itted ). Ogden w ro te h is m em o to A tte rho l t in hi s ca paci ty as th e m an ag ero fthe Ti tl e I ns ur an ce Di vi si o n a nd pur su an t to hi s o ffi ci alduti es i n that posi ti on

— not as a pri vate ci ti zen. The st ate d pu rpos e o fthe m em o w as to ser ve as a “ f o r m alr eque st[ to the Co m m i ss i o ne r ] t o ha ve the Tit l e Insurance Divi si on r em ove d fr om the Cons u m er Prote ction U nit an d to op erate as a d irec t rep ort orunder a differ ent Chi efDeputy. ” In oth er words, Ogde n wa s a t t e mpt i ngt o c o nv i nc e h i s ul ti m ate superi or, Com m i ssi onerA tte rhol t, thathi s i m m edi ate su p er vis or , D ep u ty C om m iss ion er M ih alik, w as u n fit to o ve r se e hi s di vi si o n. To b e s ur e, Og denmade m an y w id e-r an gin g a l l e g at ion s in th e fiv e-p ag e m em o, bu t a ll of them were dir ecte d toward substa nti ati ng his8 N o. 09

- 2953 propos althatthe Tit l e Insurance Divi si on be r el oca ted w i thi n the Dep ar tm ent o fI nsurance. The m em o speaks f ori tse l f

. I t w as an eff or t t o est abl i sh

— r i g h t l y o r w r o n gly

— th at M ih alik w as inc ap ab le o fpr op er l y s upe r vi singthe Ti tl e I ns ur an ce Di vi si o n, w hi ch Ogden w as charg ed w i th di re ctl y a dm ini ste ri ng. Ogde n pul l ed no punc he s an d l i st ed 35 sep arate r ea so ns w hy he thought M i hal i k wa s un fi t t o exer ci se su per vi so r y c ont r o l o ve r the Di vi si o n. F o r i ns ta nc e, he st at ed th at “ M s. M ih alik reg u lar ly d isp lay s e rra tic perso nal beh avi orthatm ani fest s i tse l fi n w i de m oo d sw i ngs, f or get fulne ss, i nsecuri ty, an d an i nabi l i ty to foc u s o n ta sk s.” O gd en als o a ss er te d th at “M s. M ih alik h a s c a u s e d a n d c o nt i n u e s t o c a u s e n u me r o u s p r o b l e ms thro ughout the Departm ent. Com pla i nts about her beh avior, from l ow l evel cleri cal staff to C hief Dep ut ies, are a n e v e r y da y fe a t ur e o f wo r k i ng a t the De pa r t men t o f I ns ur an ce . ” The l i ta ny ofgr i ev an ce s co nt i nue d in thi s ve i n. N orwas Ogden shy ab out conn ec ti ng the dots f or A tterh olt. A t one p oint he proc lai m ed that “ th e futu re su c c es s o f th e T i t le In su ra n c e D ivis ion w ill be im p os sib le und erM s. M i hal i k’ s s upervi si on .” Ogden al so w ar ned th at“ [ i ] fwe atthe Ti tl e D ivi sion ar e r equi r ed to c o nt i nue und erM s. M i hal i k’s su pervi si on, the shor t t er m i m pact w i l l be a m ar ked decl i ne i n m or al e a nd pro du cti vi ty of the Di vi si on. The l ong ter m i m pact wil l be that em plo yee s ofthe Divi si on wil l l eave and the Divi si on m ay have to be disb anded

. ” Ogden’s m em o re flects e xactl y the so rto fl oca l i zed empl o y m en t- r el at ed spe ec h G arce tt i hel d w as not enti tl edN o. 09

- 2953 9
to Fi rs t Am endm ent pr ote c tio n. Ogden’s r equest to have th e T itle Ins u ra n c e D ivis ion tra n sfe rre d p lain l y fa lls w i thi n the sco pe ofhi s offi ci alr esponsibi l i ti es as m anage r ofthe Divi si on, and Ogden con c edes a s m uch. H e insi sts , how e v e r, tha t hi s memo mus t b e v i e we d a s mor e t han a r eo rgani zati on r equest; he m ai ntai ns thati t was al so a com pla i nt abo ut M i hal i k’ s i m proper

— an d p os sib ly unethi cal

—behavi or, wh i ch he a rgues i s a m att ero fge nera l pub l i c c o n c e r n . F o r i n s t a n c e , h e p o i n t s t o o n e o ft he 35 c o m pl aint s he l o d ged a g ains t M i ha l i k : tha t sh e i m proper l y di re cted fund s i ntended f or the Ti tl e Insurance Divi si on t o othe r pursui ts. H i s m em o al so ass er ted that M i ha l i kr epe at edl y fl o ut ed st at e per son ne l r ul es i n the hi ri ng o fem plo yee s. Ogde n t hus s ug g es ts t ha t we d i v o r ce t he re or gani zati on r equest from the charg es ofo ffi ci al m i sco nd uct

— parti cul ar l y the al l ega ti on that M i ha lik m i sused Div i si on fund s. H i s a rgum ent i s t h at al though the reo rg ani zati on r equest w as m ade i n the cour se of his o ffi ci alr esponsibi l i ti es, the re port i ng o fthe m i suse of fu n d s w as n ot . H e n ot es th atM ih alik co n firm ed in h er d ep os itio n th at O gd en ’s officia l j ob d es c rip ti o n d id no t ta skhi m wi th th e r es po ns ibi l i tyo fmoni to r i ng the ( m i s) m anage m ent o fthe Tit l e Insurance Divi si on Fund. These par ti cul arm i sco nd uct al l ega ti ons, Ogd en m ai ntai ns, r efl ect the c oncer ns o fa pri vate ci ti zen r ather than a pu bl i c em plo yee . Fo r su pp or t he ci tes Vale nt i no v. Village of South Chicago Heights , 5 75 F.3d at67 1-7 2; w e h eld ther e that “[ i ] t i s bynow w el l

- est abl i shed that speech p ro te st in g gov er n m en t w as te ad d re ss es a m at te r of p u b lic10 N o. 09

- 2953

concern and i s there f or e e n titl ed to co nsti tuti onal p ro te c tio n .” O gd en ’s s tr ai ned atte m pt to r ecas t hi s m em o as an exer ci se i n w hi st l e-bl owing i s unpers uasi ve. Ogden expli ci tl y desc ribed hi s m em o as a “ f or m alr equest to ha ve the Ti tl e I ns ur an ce Di vi si o n r emov ed f r o m the Consum erPro tect i on Un i t a nd to op er at e as a di re ct re p or t or u n d er a d iffer en t C h ief D ep u ty .” T h e s p e c i fic “w hi stl e-bl owing” al l ega ti on s that Ogden now rel i es on to fi t hi m se l fw i th i n G arce tt i ’ s r equi re m ent o fpri vate
c itiz en sp ee c h w e re p ar t a n d p ar c el of t h e ra tio n ale he o ffe r e d “ i n s up po r to fthi s r e qu e s t ” f o r de pa r tm ental re or gani zati on. That i s, ev er ythi ng i n the m em o w as ca l cul at ed to a ch i ev e th e state d o bj ec ti ve o fr emov i ng the Ti tl e Insurance Divi si on fro m the Consum er Prote ction U nit. It is true tha t three da ys before s e n d i n g h i s me mo , O g d e n me t wi th o ffi c i a l s i n t he St ate Per sonnelDiv i si on in o rderto fi l e a f or m al co m pl aintr eg ar di ngM i ha l i k ’ s al l eg ed hi r i ngv i o l at i o ns a n d mi s u s e o fth e t i t l e i n s u r a nc e f un d

. B u th i s me mo nei th err efer ences the di sci pli naryco m pla i nt ag ai nst M i hal i k no r re com m en d s that s he be di sci pli ned orr ep rim anded i n any othe r w ay. H i s m em o w as an offi ci alr equest by a di vi si on m anage r, act i ng i n that capaci ty, as ki ng f ora departm entalr eor ganiza tio n

— no m or e, n o les s. “ G arce tt im ade cl earthatpubli c em plo yee s spe ak i ngpur su an t to the i ro ffi ci aldut i es a r e spe ak i ng as em plo yee s, notci ti zens, and thus a re notpro tect ed by the F i rs t Am endm ent r ega rdl ess o fthe conte nt o f thei r speech

. ” S pi egl a v. H ull , 4 8 1 F. 3d 961, 965 (7th Cir.N o. 09

- 2953 11

I n a r gu i ng tha t a t l e a s t po r t i on s of hi s m e m o m us t be c on s i d- 2 ered p ro tected sp eech , O g d en focu ses on M iha lik’s tacit ad m issi on that som e of the accus ati ons le veled in the m em o involved ar ea s out s i de Ogden ’ s s t at ed j ob de s c ri pt i on. W hi l e a f or m al j ob d escrip tion m ay b e of som e u se in discer nin g w h e n a p u b lic em p loy ee is spea k ing p u rsu an t to h is official d u ties, it i s har d ly d ispo sitive. A n em p loy ee’s “o fficial resp on sibilities” can easily ex te n d w e l l b ey o n d “c o re ” jo b fu n ct io n s. S ee S p ieg la , 481 F. 3d at 966. The “of fic ial res pon sibili ty” in q u iry requir es a m ore c o mmo n s e n s e , c o n t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s o fth e r o l e th e p u b l i c e mp lo y ee as su m ed in m a k in g th e sp e e c h a t is su e i n th e c a se . S ee G ar ce tti, 547 U.S

. at 424- 45. 20 07 ) ( quo ta ti o n mar k s om i tt ed)

. Og den ’ s m emo was the act of a p ubl i c em plo yee act i ng a s a publ i c em plo yee, not a co nc erne d c i ti ze n. 2 Fin ally , Vale nt i no i s o fno h elp to Ogden. The m unici pal empl o y ee i n Vale nt i no c on fid ed in a m em b er of t h e p u b lic ab o uthe r c o nc erns tha t th e l o ca l m ayor was r ewa r di ng f ri ends and f am i l y with suspect j obs i n herdepartm ent. W e hel d that thi s s peech

— w hi ch l ed to a FOI A r equest an d a c o m pl aintfr o m a pub li c- i nt er es t g r o up

— w as con stitut ionall y prote cted

. 575 F.3d at 671-72. Ogd en ’s si tuati on i s co m ple tel y di ffer ent. H i s m em o w as an i nt erna l, f o r m alr eque stt o hi s ul ti m at e su per vi so r a sk i ng th at his d ep artm en t be reorgan ized

. I t d id n ot p urp ort to expose orr em edy i nj usti ces ofpubli c i m port ance; i ts ai m was to per suade A tte rho l t that M ihal i k was an unsuit abl e s up er visor ofOgden’s di vi si on a nd co nvi nce hi m to rem ove the divi si on fro m herco ntro l

. A ccor dingl y,12 N o. 09

- 2953 Ogde n’ s spe ec h was no t consti tu ti o na l l y pr o te ct ed, a nd su m m ar y j udg m en t di smi ss i ngthe F i r stAm en d m en t cl ai m was appropri ate
. W e a re l eft w i th one fi nal house kee ping i tem
. On app eal O gd en ha s ex p ressed a con cern th at th e m agistrate j ud ge’s r es o l ut iono fthe due

- pr o ce ss c l ai m i n f av o r o fthe d efe n d an ts m igh t fo re c los e litig at ion o ft h at cla im in the Ind i ana co urts
. A s w e have not ed, Ogden cl ar i fi ed i n hi s r epl y b ri efand at or alar gum ent that his dueproce ss cl ai m i s ba sed enti re l y o n sta te la w ; as such, o nce th e fe d e r a l f r e e - s p e e c h c l a i m wa s r e s o l v e d a g a i n s t h i m, th e due

- pr o ce ss c l ai m s ho ul d ha ve b een i nc l ude d i n the or d er r em anding the s tat e cl ai m s t o the Ind i ana co urt. The ma g i s t r a t e j u d g e s h o u l d n o th a v e t a k e n u p a nd r e s o l v e d the du e - pr o c e s s c l a i m a s i f i t a r o s e under federa l l aw

— th o ug h i t was unde r st an dab l e why s he d i d so gi ven the co nfusi on i n the ple ading s. That cl aim now r et u rn s to sta te cour t a l ong w i th Ogden’s o therst ate cl ai m s. W ith th is cl arification, th e j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct cou rt i s A FFI RMED .

5- 18- 10