Richard Martinez v. City of Cleveland
700 F. App'x 521
6th Cir.2017Background
- Richard Martinez, a Cleveland police sergeant, finished 7th on the civil-service exam for lieutenant and expected promotion in rank order.
- The City applied a “one-in-three” charter provision allowing selection of any one of the top three candidates for vacancies, and promoted six higher-ranked candidates while bypassing Martinez multiple times.
- Martinez claimed the department departed from an alleged past practice of promoting by highest score; his eligibility later expired without promotion.
- He pursued union grievance/arbitration efforts, but the City obtained an injunction blocking arbitration; Martinez sued in federal court seeking damages for due-process violations and a writ of mandamus to compel promotion.
- The district court dismissed his procedural due-process claim for failure to state a claim and dismissed his mandamus petition; Martinez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez had a protected property interest in promotion | Martinez: his exam rank created a protected property interest in promotion | City: no protected interest or adequate process existed | Court: Protected interest exists (Paskvan controls) |
| Whether Martinez was denied adequate procedural due process | Martinez: lack of pre-deprivation notice/hearing and state remedies were inadequate | City: post-deprivation state remedies were available and adequate | Court: No due-process violation because adequate state post-deprivation remedies existed |
| Whether the district court should accept plaintiff's factual claim that state remedies were inadequate | Martinez: alleged state remedies were inadequate as a factual assertion | City: adequacy of remedies is a legal question not bound by plaintiff's label | Court: District court properly rejected Martinez’s legal conclusion; adequacy is a question of law |
| Whether Martinez can pursue a writ of mandamus in federal court as an independent claim | Martinez: Ohio law permits mandamus as an independent cause of action | City: (implicitly) district court erred to allow a standalone mandamus claim | Court: Ohio law does permit such a writ; district court erred to dismiss it and should decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Paskvan v. City of Cleveland Civil Serv. Comm’n, 946 F.2d 1233 (6th Cir. 1991) (officer alleged procedural due-process violation after being passed over for promotion)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (post-deprivation state remedies can satisfy procedural due process)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1990) (availability of state-law remedies relevant to procedural due process analysis)
- Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685 (6th Cir. 1985) (prior panel precedent is binding absent en banc or Supreme Court reversal)
- Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244 (6th Cir. 1996) (presumption against exercising supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims)
- La. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 622 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of de novo review for motions to dismiss)
- Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1999) (two-step test for procedural due-process claims)
- Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) (legal conclusions disguised as factual allegations need not be accepted on a motion to dismiss)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (pleading standards referenced for other precedent distinctions)