Court Opinion

ID: 2964084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:10.013202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.329448
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1957

                              MICHAEL A. CRONIN, ET AL.,

                                Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                          v.

                              TOWN OF AMESBURY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants-Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Peter Antell, with whom Antell & Associates and J. Daniel Lindley
            ____________            ___________________     _________________
        were on brief, for appellants.
            Joseph L. Tehan, Jr., with whom Kurt B. Fliegauf and Kopelman and
            ____________________            ________________     ____________
        Paige, P.C. were on brief, for appellees Town of Amesbury, Amesbury
        ___________
        Police Department, Board of Selectmen of the Town of Amesbury, Daniel
        F. Cleary, R. Claude Gonthier, John M. Koelsch, Joseph E. Leary,
        William R. McAdams, George A. Motsis, Donna L. Stuart and Charles B.
        Wright.
            Maura L. Sheehan, with whom Law Offices of Attorney Maura L.
            ________________            ________________________________
        Sheehan was on brief, for appellees Daniel L. Bartley and Nancy
        _______
        Gonthier. 

                                 ____________________

                                    April 16, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per curiam.  This  case arises out of  the decision
                      Per curiam.
                      __________

            of the  Town of  Amesbury, Massachusetts to  fire Michael  A.

            Cronin from his position as the  Town's Chief of Police.  The

            Town terminated Cronin for falsely denying under oath that he

            had  written a pornographic letter that was found in his desk

            at  the  Amesbury  Police  Department.   In  a  fifteen-count

            complaint, Cronin alleged that the Town's Board of Selectmen,

            two Town Managers, a  number of police officers (collectively

            the "Town  defendants") and  two private citizens  (Daniel L.

            Bartley and Nancy Gonthier) terminated him in violation of 42

            U.S.C.    1983 and 1985(3) and state law.  The district court

            granted summary  judgment for  the Town  defendants on  the  

            1983 and   1985(3) counts (Counts I, II and XV) and dismissed

            the state law counts, without  prejudice, for lack of subject

            matter jurisdiction.1  Cronin has appealed.

                      The district  court, in  its careful review  of the

            case, see Cronin  v. Town of Amesbury,  875 F. Supp. 375  (D.
                  ___ ______     ________________

            Mass.  1995),  adequately  recited the  pertinent  undisputed

            facts and there  is no  need to repeat  them in detail  here.

            Essentially, the  facts  showed that  in  early 1988  a  Town

            police officer, Charles Wright  (one of the defendants here),

            found  in  Cronin's desk  a  pornographic  letter written  on

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The district court entered a separate order granting a
            Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed on behalf of Nancy Gonthier and
            Daniel Bartley dismissing the federal counts with prejudice
            and the state counts without prejudice.

                                         -3-
                                          3

            yellow  lined paper and signed "Mike."  Copies were made and,

            in February  1991, one copy was shown to members of the Board

            of Selectmen.   After  a secret  meeting, the  Town suspended

            Cronin with pay.

                      A series  of investigations  by Town Managers  into

            Cronin's fitness to serve as police chief followed.  The Town

            Managers'  investigations,  which occurred  between  1991 and

            1993, focussed on  the letter  and on other  alleged acts  of

            misconduct.   The first  Town Manager to  investigate, Joseph

            Fahey,  recommended that  three  charges be  brought  against

            Cronin and  that he be given  a 60-day suspension.   The Town

            subsequently fired Fahey and  replaced him with Donna Stuart,

            who,  one day  after  being appointed,  brought nine  charges

            against Cronin.   Public  hearings on  the nine  charges were

            held in  front of a  civil service hearing  officer, Nicholas

            Foundas.    During those  hearings,  the letter  was  made an

            exhibit and Cronin denied under oath that the letter was his.

            On July 7,  1992, Foundas found Cronin guilty  of only two of

            the nine charges  and recommended  a 90-day  suspension.   He

            also  found that Cronin had  written the letter,  but that it

            had  no bearing  on his  duties.   Cronin appealed  Foundas's

            decision to the Civil Service Commission.

                      Before   the   Civil  Service   Commission  decided

            Cronin's   appeal,  however,   a   number  of   other  events

            transpired.   First,  Town Manager  Stuart demoted  Cronin to

                                         -4-
                                          4

            sergeant.  Second, the Board of Selectmen released the letter

            to the press.  Third, in October 1992, Stuart was replaced by

            a  new Town  Manager, John  M. Koelsch,  who brought  two new

            charges against Cronin -- (1) lying under oath when he denied

            authorship of the letter at  earlier hearings and (2) conduct

            unbecoming an  officer.   Koelsch's charges were  prompted by

            Daniel  Bartley  and  Nancy Gonthier,  private  citizens  who

            complained that  Cronin had lied under  oath about authorship

            of  the   letter.    After  bringing   the  charges,  Koelsch

            designated himself hearing  officer.   On June  17, 1993,  he

            found that  Cronin had  lied about authorship  of the  letter

            and,  in so doing, had acted  in a manner unbecoming a police

            officer.   Cronin  was then  terminated.   Cronin immediately

            appealed Koelsch's decision to the Civil Service Commission.

                      On  July  20, 1993,  the  Civil  Service Commission

            reversed  Foundas's decision,  recommending  that  Cronin  be

            restored to his previous position, with back pay.  As of this

            court's   inquiry  at   oral  argument,  the   Civil  Service

            Commission has not yet decided Cronin's appeal from Koelsch's

            decision.

            Section 1983 Claims
            ___________________

                      Cronin's     1983  claims  allege   that  the  Town

            defendants deprived  him of procedural due  process when they

                                         -5-
                                          5

            terminated him.2  However, even assuming  for the purposes of

            this  appeal that the  Town defendants failed  to give Cronin

            the  procedure he was due in making the decision to terminate

            him  (an issue on which  we take no  position), Cronin cannot

            succeed on  his procedural  due process  claim unless  he can

            show  that the state failed  to provide him  with an adequate

            postdeprivation remedy.   See  Lowe v.  Scott, 959 F.2d  323,
                                      ___  ____     _____

            340-41  (1st  Cir. 1992)  ("[I]f  a  state provides  adequate

            postdeprivation remedies -- either  by statute or through the

            common-law tort remedies available in its  courts -- no claim

            of a violation of procedural due process can be brought under

              1983  against   the  state   officials  whose  random   and

            unauthorized conduct caused the deprivation.").

                      Here,   the   state   has   provided   an  adequate

            postdeprivation  remedy.   Massachusetts has  provided Cronin

            with extensive  postdeprivation remedies  in the form  of the

            Civil  Service Law.  See Mass. Gen. L. ch. 31,    41-44.  Any
                                 ___

                                
            ____________________

            2.  Cronin, who under state law can only be terminated for
            "just cause," see Mass. Gen. L. ch. 31,   41, has a protected
                          ___
            property interest in his employment and thus may invoke the
            protection of the due process clause.  See Cummings v. South
                                                   ___ ________    _____
            Portland Hous. Auth., 985 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1993).  In
            ____________________
            invoking his procedural due process claims, Cronin does not
            seriously argue that the established state pre-termination
            procedures are deficient.  Rather, Cronin's claims rest on
            alleged random and unauthorized acts by the Town defendants. 
            See Marino v. Ameruso, 837 F.2d 45, 47 (2d Cir. 1988).  He
            ___ ______    _______
            generally argues that the Town defendants were out to get
            him, and, with respect to the termination specifically, he
            argues that Koelsch was biased and made evidentiary errors.   

                                         -6-
                                          6

            person   aggrieved   by  a   decision   of   the  "appointing

            authority"3 may  appeal to  the Civil Service  Commission and

            be given a hearing before a  member of the Commission or some

            disinterested person.   The Commission may  affirm or reverse

            the action  of the appointing  authority.  If  the appointing

            authority's  decision  is  reversed,  the  employee  must  be

            reinstated without loss  of compensation or other rights.  If

            the  employee  is   dissatisfied  with   the  Civil   Service

            Commission's decision, he or  she may appeal to the  Superior

            Court.  See Mass. Gen. L. ch. 31,   44.
                    ___

                      Cronin complains that the Civil  Service Commission

            has  taken  too long  to  decide  his appeal  from  Koelsch's

            decision.  Although extraordinarily  long delays may render a

            postdeprivation remedy inadequate, that is not the case here.

            See Alton Land Trust v. Town of Alton, 745 F.2d 730, 732 (1st
            ___ ________________    _____________

            Cir.  1984)  (two  and   one-half  year  litigation  was  not

            inordinate delay).  Despite  the almost three-year delay, the

            possibility  of reinstatement with back pay remains available

            to him.  See Decker v. Hillsborough County Attorney's Office,
                     ___ ______    _____________________________________

            845  F.2d 17,  22 (1st  Cir. 1988)  (although there  had been

            delay, New Hampshire had not yet refused to provide plaintiff

                                
            ____________________

            3.  Koelsch, as Town Manager, was the appointing authority. 
            See Mass. Gen. L. ch. 31,   1; see also Amesbury Town
            ___                            ___ ____
            Charter, Art. 4,   4-21(b).

                                         -7-
                                          7

            with  a remedy).  We affirm the district court's dismissal of

            the   1983 claims.4

            Section 1985(3) Claim
            _____________________

                      Cronin   also  argues   that  the   district  court

            erroneously granted  summary judgment on his    1985(3) claim

            against  the Town  defendants and  erroneously dismissed  his

              1985(3)  claim  filed  against  Nancy Gonthier  and  Daniel

            Bartley.   Section 1985(3),  which prohibits  conspiracies to

            deprive  persons   of  rights  or   privileges,  requires  an

            "invidiously  discriminatory animus" in  which the defendants

            have taken the action because of "its adverse effects upon an

            identifiable  group."    Bray v.  Alexandria  Women's  Health
                                     ____     ___________________________

            Clinic, 113  S. Ct.  753, 760-61 (1993)  (internal quotations
            ______

            omitted).  No  such animus  was even alleged  here.   Summary

            judgment was properly entered in favor of the Town defendants

            and  dismissal was  properly granted  for Nancy  Gonthier and

            Daniel Bartley.

                                
            ____________________

            4.  Cronin also argues (1) that the Town defendants violated
            his procedural due process rights when they suspended him
            with pay and when they demoted him to sergeant; and (2) that
            the Town defendants violated his right to petition, his right
            to confrontation, and his right to privacy (although he has
            been unable to articulate any cognizable theory).  These
            arguments are without merit.  Appellants' additional
            arguments, (1) that the district court erred in dismissing
            the state law claims, (2) that the district court erred in
            its various rulings on discovery practices, and (3) that the
            district court erred in denying appellants' motion for relief
            from judgment, are also all meritless. 

                                         -8-
                                          8

            Gonthier and Bartley's Motion for Damages and Costs
            ___________________________________________________

                      Notwithstanding  the  obvious  correctness  of  the

            district  court's dismissal  of  the   1985(3)  count  lodged

            against Gonthier  and Bartley,  Cronin  has sought  appellate

            review of the dismissal.   Gonthier and Bartley have  filed a

            separate motion for damages  and costs under Fed. R.  App. P.

            38  and Cronin  has responded.5   Federal  Rule  of Appellate

            Procedure 38 provides that  if an appellate court "determines

            that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed

            motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to

            respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the

            appellee."   Fed. R. App. P.  38.  An appeal  is frivolous if

            the result is  obvious or the  arguments are "wholly  without

            merit."   Westcott Constr. Corp.  v. Fireman's Fund  of N.J.,
                      ______________________     _______________________

            996  F.2d  14,  17   (1st  Cir.  1993)  (internal  quotations

            omitted).   "[I]t  is enough  that the  appellants  and their

            attorney should have been aware that the appeal had no chance

            of success."  E.H.  Ashley & Co.,  Inc. v. Wells Fargo  Alarm
                          _________________________    __________________

            Servs.,  907  F.2d  1274,  1280  (1st  Cir.  1990)  (emphasis
            ______

            omitted).

                      Even a cursory reading of the relevant case law and

            treatises would  have revealed  that the   1985(3)  claim was

            not  properly brought.   Not  surprisingly, Cronin  failed to

                                
            ____________________

            5.  Cronin's response was filed ten days after Gonthier's and
            Bartley's motion was filed.

                                         -9-
                                          9

            articulate  in  his  brief any  reasoned  basis  for why  the

            district court erroneously dismissed the   1985(3) count.  He

            instead  pressed  a  bizarre  and  irrelevant  argument  that

            Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 54(b) precluded the district

            court  from entering  a  separate judgment  for Gonthier  and

            Bartley.   When the appellees  in their brief  properly noted

            that the Rule  54(b) argument was  baseless, Cronin used  the

            reply  brief to try to transform his Rule 54(b) argument into

            a variant of a  pendent party jurisdiction argument.   Such a

            pendent party  argument was never raised  before the district

            court nor in the initial briefing on appeal.  One might think

            that Cronin created such an argument to conceal the fact that

            the appeal from the dismissal of the claims against  Gonthier

            and Bartley was wholly without merit.

                      A penalty is appropriate here.  Rule 38  allows the

            award  of attorneys'  fees  as "just  damages" for  frivolous

            appeals.  See Natasha, Inc.  v. Evita Marine Charters,  Inc.,
                      ___ _____________     ____________________________

            763 F.2d 468,  472 (1st Cir. 1985); see also  Fed. R. App. P.
                                                ___ ____

            38  advisory  committee's notes.    This court  can  assess a

            particular  amount or  "reasonable counsel  fees" as  damages

            without additional submissions by  the parties.  Natasha, 763
                                                             _______

            F.2d at  472 (internal quotations omitted);  see also Tomczyk
                                                         ___ ____ _______

            v. Blue Cross  & Blue  Shield United of  Wisconsin, 951  F.2d
               _______________________________________________

            771, 779-80 & n.4 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 940
                                               _____ ______

            (1992).  Gonthier  and Bartley assert that they have incurred

                                         -10-
                                          10

            legal  fees  in  responding  to  this  appeal  of  $2,725.00,

            exclusive  of costs.  We believe such fees are reasonable and

            assess that amount as just damages to the appellees.  We also

            assess double costs.

                      The  bulk of  the  blame for  the frivolous  appeal

            rests  with  appellants' attorney.    An  attorney's duty  to

            represent  a client  zealously is  not a  license  to harass.

            When the  appellants' attorney sought to  appeal the district

            court's dismissal of the   1985(3) claim against Gonthier and

            Bartley,  he  crossed  the  line  from  zealous  advocacy  to

            vexatious advocacy, needlessly multiplying the proceedings in

            this case.   Under such  circumstances, it is  appropriate to

            sanction  the  attorney  personally  for  the  excess  costs,

            expenses and  attorneys' fees reasonably incurred.   See Fed.
                                                                 ___

            R. App.  P. 38; 28  U.S.C.   1927;  Cruz v. Savage,  896 F.2d
                                                ____    ______

            626,   635  (1st  Cir.   1990)  (frivolous  appeal  warranted

            assessment  of  double  costs  and  attorneys'  fees  against

            attorney under Rule 38  and   1927).  We therefore  apportion

            the  damages award and order  that $2,500.00 of  the award be

            assessed   directly  against  appellants'   attorney.6    The

            remaining $225.00 shall be assessed against appellant Michael

                                
            ____________________

            6.  The award of damages against appellants' attorney shall
            run against Peter Antell, not J. Daniel Lindley, who was
            allowed to withdraw as counsel for appellants.

                                         -11-
                                          11

            Cronin.7  Double  costs shall be  born jointly and  severally

            by Michael Cronin and appellants' attorney.

                      Affirmed.    Appellees'   Motion  for  Damages  for
                      ________

            Frivolous Appeal is granted, with double costs and damages to
                                _______

            be  apportioned in the manner prescribed in this opinion.  It
                                                                       __

            is so ordered.
            _____________

                                
            ____________________

            7.  No costs or damages are assessed against the other
            appellants, Gail Cronin and Angel Cronin.

                                         -12-
                                          12