Justia Federal District Court Opinions

In this appeal, we consider a police officer's contention that his transfer from corporal to police patrolman deprived him of "liberty" or "property," vesting him with a right under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to a hearing on the charge that provoked the transfer. The district court granted summary judgment for the City of Tampa, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

At the time of the district court's ruling, the plaintiff, Robert Moore, was a sixteen-year veteran of the City of Tampa police, having joined the force in 1959. Moore served from 1970 to 1974 as a corporal. The position is a hybrid; although a corporal has operational duties like any other patrolman, he also has the supervisory responsibilities of training probationary patrolmen and of serving as squad supervisor in the absence of the sergeant. Patrolmen are appointed as corporals on the basis of ability and demonstrated above-average performance. Only continued above-average performance will assure a patrolman's retention of the position.1 The chief of police, with the approval of the mayor, assigns patrolmen to corporal status but, again with the approval of the mayor, may reassign appointees to the duties of a regular patrolman.2 In this case, the chief of police reassigned Moore to patrolman's duties after other officers reported that Moore failed to assist an off-duty patrolman investigating a possible breaking-and-entering suspect.

Corporal appointments have no effect on an employee's civil service status, so civil service review procedures do not apply when the chief of police reassigns a corporal to patrolman duties. The City of Tampa Code does provide a grievance procedure when civil service review does not apply.3 After his reassignment, Moore did not file a grievance; instead, he filed suit alleging a denial of due process in this transfer.

Moore's claim to due process under the fourteenth amendment merits consideration only if the department's action deprived him of "liberty" or "property."4 We conclude that Moore had no property interest in his position as corporal, nor did the circumstances of his transfer deny a liberty interest.

Moore plainly had no property interest in his position as corporal. We look to state law to measure Moore's property claim.5 The Tampa Code could not be clearer that a corporal serves in that special capacity only at the pleasure of the chief of police and the mayor.6 Although Moore alleged that corporal assignments were more or less permanent somewhat akin to the de facto tenure alleged by the plaintiff in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972) personnel records reveal that on other occasions the chief of police reassigned corporals to regular patrolman's duties. Moore cites no state law that gives a patrolman a property interest in the position of corporal,7 and assignment to that position had no effect on Moore's civil service status. We view Moore's position as corporal as no different from that held by a probationary employee: no reasonable expectation of continuous employment as a corporal exists that could give rise to a property interest.8 To accord Moore a due process right to a hearing before reassignment would require the Tampa Police Department to grant hearings before assigning patrolmen to traffic duty or to the radio room. We see no justification for such a requirement.

Neither did Moore's reassignment deny any liberty interest qualifying for due process protection. In Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that defamation by a state official alone did not deprive an individual of a liberty interest protected under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment so as to give rise to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. To establish a liberty interest sufficient to implicate fourteenth amendment safeguards, the individual must be not only stigmatized but also stigmatized in connection with a denial of a right or status previously recognized under state law. See Paul, supra at 711-12, 96 S.Ct. 1155. Under this "stigma-plus" test, see Danno v. Peterson, 421 F.Supp. 950, 954 (N.D.Ill.1976), we must determine whether the allegations of Moore's failure to respond to the call for aid of another officer, together with his assignment to patrolman's duties, deprived him of a liberty interest protected by due process.

Assuming that the report and the assignment stigmatized Moore,⁹ his retention of employment negates his claim that he was denied a "liberty." Paul v. Davis made it clear that stigma connected with an employment discharge could give rise to a liberty interest,¹⁰ but in his discussion of Board of Regents v. Roth, Mr. Justice Rehnquist noted for the Paul majority that:

Certainly there is no suggestion in Roth to indicate that a hearing would be required each time the State in its capacity as employer might be considered responsible for a statement defaming an employee who continues to be an employee.

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. at 710, 96 S.Ct. at 1165. When an employee retains his position even after being defamed by a public official, the only claim of stigma he has derives from the injury to his reputation, an interest that Paul reveals does not rise to the level of a liberty interest. The internal transfer of an employee, unless it constitutes such a change of status as to be regarded essentially as a loss of employment,¹¹ does not provide the additional loss of a tangible interest necessary to give rise to a liberty interest meriting protection under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. See Sullivan v. Brown, 544 F.2d 279, 283 (6th Cir. 1976) (transfer of teacher did not deprive her of liberty interest); Danno v. Peterson, supra at 954 (transfer of teacher did not deprive her of liberty interest). Cf. Colaizzi v. Walker, 542 F.2d 969, 973-74 (7th Cir. 1976) (stigma plus employment discharge gave rise to liberty interest).

The trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants. Moore must look to the city's internal grievance procedures or state law for relief.

AFFIRMED.