Brooks v. City of New Orleans ( 2004 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31013
Summary Calendar
DONALD L. BROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; ET AL,
Defendants,
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; MARC MORIAL, Mayor of the City of New
Orleans, in his official and individual capacity; RICHARD
PENNINGTON, Chief of Police for the City of New Orleans, in his
individual and official capacity; RONALD RAY, Sergeant; FELIX
LOICANO, Major; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES; NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS OFFICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
00-CV-1900-S
May 3, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Donald L. Brooks, a New Orleans police officer,
appeals the district court’s grant of Appellees’ motion for summary
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
judgment. Brooks alleges violations of his property and liberty
rights under the Due Process Clause and invasion of privacy under
the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 5 of the Louisiana
Constitution arising from the Police Department’s decision to
suspend Brooks from duty for 120 days and to issue a press release
stating the facts surrounding Brooks’ arrest and suspension. Brooks
filed an appeal of the suspension before the Civil Service
Commission.
After Brooks was tried and acquitted of second degree murder,
Brooks and the Police Department settled the civil service case.
Brooks was reinstated with back pay and emoluments. Brooks filed
this action alleging violations of his property and liberty rights
under the Due Process Clause and invasion of privacy under the
Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 5 of the Louisiana
Constitution. The district court granted Appellees’ motion for
summary judgment, and we affirm.
The appellees sued in their individual capacities assert the
defense of qualified immunity. Our analysis is twofold. First, we
must decide whether the plaintiff alleged a violation of a clearly
established constitutional right.1 A right is clearly established
if its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official
would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Second,
we must address whether the defendant's conduct was objectively
reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time that the
1
Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Gov’t, 279 F.3d
273, 284 (5th Cir. 2002).
challenged conduct occurred.2
The City of New Orleans, as a governmental body, is liable for
damages under § 1983 for constitutional actions that “implement[]
or execute[] a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision
officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers.”3
Municipalities, and officials in their official capacities acting
as the final policymaking authority for the municipality, are not
immune from suit.4
Brooks, as a police officer, has a property interest in his
employment that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. For
essentially the same reasons as the district court, we find that
the actions of the City and the Police Department did not violate
the Due Process Clause. Brooks was charged with second degree
murder, which was sufficient justification for the Police
Department to suspend him and issue a public statement regarding
his suspension. Given the serious charges made against Brooks, the
Department’s action was measured and the opportunity to appeal the
suspension at a hearing was sufficient to satisfy due process
concerns.
Brooks also claims that he was deprived of a liberty interest
because the press release issued by the Department had a
stigmatizing effect that significantly limited his opportunities
2
Id.
3
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).
4
Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2001).
for future employment. Brooks was not terminated from his
employment, but was merely suspended for a limited period of time
and was reinstated with full back pay and emoluments. Brooks
presented no evidence that he was denied other employment
opportunities. There is no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Brooks was deprived of a liberty interest.
Brooks also alleges that he was deprived of his right to
privacy under the Fourth Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution.
Brooks did not have a reasonable expectation that information
concerning his arrest and suspension would be kept private. He is
a public official, and was charged with a serious crime. Under the
circumstances, he could have no reasonable expectation that this
information would be kept private. Further, because Brooks has not
demonstrated a violation of his rights, his conspiracy claim is
without merit.
The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity
because their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the
legal rules clearly established at the time of the incident. As to
the other Appellees, Brooks has failed to establish a violation of
his due process or privacy rights. AFFIRMED.