Terry Kent Ringstaff v. Dale Howard and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Don Siegelman

der state law. The fact that these are munity. judgment of the district court intentional torts does not mean they REVERSED, and the case is REMAND- are 2302(b). not in 5 included U.S.C.A. § ED to the district defend- As Report clear, Senate made pro- “A ants’ motions for summary judgment. personnel practice hibited personnel is a action which is prohibited taken for pur-

pose.” S.Rep. No. 95th Cong., 2d

Sess., reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. &

Admin.News 2742. Plaintiffs character-

ization of his conspiracy claims as in- tentional interference employment Terry RINGSTAFF, Kent claims does not alter our conclusion that Petitioner-Appellant, the claims are included within the scope of 2302(b). 5 U.S.C.A. § Dale HOWARD and Attorney Gen- Finally, defendants among are that class eral of Alabama, the State of Don of federal employees personnel whose deci- Siegelman, Respondents-Appellees. may sions challenged under the CSRA. Plaintiff conceded at oral No. 87-7573. Courtney acted as supervi- United States Court of Appeals, sor. undisputed It was that defendant Eleventh Circuit. D’Lugos plaintiffs supervisor. These actions were then taken by an “employee Dec. 1988. who authority take, has direct others to Granting Rehearing Order In Banc take, recommend, approve any personnel action.” 2302(b). Feb. U.S.C.A. § In this personnel actions chal-

lenged are included in 5 U.S.C.A. 2302(a)(2)(A);the challenges

§ among are challenges

those included in 5 U.S.C.A. 2302(b)(4),(5), (6); and the defend-

ants are members of the class of federal

officials covered 2302(b). U.S.C.A. § action,

This then, clearly falls within scope CSRA. In light of the con-

gressional policy unify challenges to fed- personnel

eral actions, we hold these state

law claims are preempted by the CSRA. emphasize

We that we do not decide

whether the preempts CSRA all state com-

mon law actions for tortious interference

with employment by federal employees. merely

We where, decide that here, as

employee challenges personnel actions

within scope of the Act's coverage un- law,

der those challenges are

preempted by the CSRA.

III. CONCLUSION

Because we hold that these state com-

mon law claims preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act of we need appellants’

address claims of im- absolute Ala., Clarke, Montgomery, Baker

Janie petitioner-appellant. Gen., Alabama Atty. Siegelman, Don Jr., Brendle, Asst. House, G. Cecil State Ala., respon- Gen., Montgomery, Atty. dents-appellees. Judge, RONEY, Chief Before *, Circuit and SMITH

JOHNSON Judges. Judge:

JOHNSON, Circuit appeal involves This case for writ aof denial district court’s 28 U.S.C. brought under corpus dis- direct reverse We A. the writ. trict BACKGROUND I. for the arrested Terry Henderson Mary Circuit, designation. sitting * Federal Smith, Judge Circuit S. Edward Honorable (1973), 7, 1980, Ringstaff unless the first three factors 1980.1 On November government, made his first demand for a He later reasserted his demand on March Ringstaff preju- must demonstrate actual Mitchell, and October 1981. On June dice. United States v. 24, 1981, Ringstaff requested 1544, (11th Cir.1985), denied, and was cert. granted psychiatric 1066, 819, evaluation. On Janu U.S. 106 S.Ct. 88 L.Ed.2d 792 ary 22, 1982, Lunacy (1986). the Alabama Commis competent sion found him to stand trial. finally The district court below held that tried for mur May 5, guilty delay der on 1982. He was found of 23 months was serious and of the lesser included offense of murder on presumptively prejudicial.2 The state May 6, 1982, eventually objection finding, was sentenced makes no to this and we prison agree. agree parties for life. exhausted his We also with both brought state remedies and this and the district court that raised corpus. Magis speedy sufficiently early. writ of habeas The U.S. subsequently trial issue hearing Therefore, Ringstaff's speedy trate held a de trial claim petition. Magistrate's depends primarily upon nied the ings find the reason for the adopted by delay. Hawk, were the district court. In See United States v. Loud appeal, Ringstaff 302, 315, 648, 656, this raises the claim 474 U.S. 106 S.Ct. right that he was denied his constitutional (1985) ("The flag litigants L.Ed.2d 640 all speedy to a capture factor, seek to is the second delay."). delay reason for If the reason for II. DISCUSSION weighs heavily against state, then Supreme Wingo, Ringstaff prejudice Court in Barker v. need not show actual 514, 2182, prevail, Moore, 26, 407 U.S. 92 S.Ct. 33 L.Ed.2d 101 94 S.Ct. at (1972), four-part balancing 189, delay reasonable, set forth a test but if the then evaluating claims of the denial of the prejudice. Mitchell, he must show actual speedy constitutional to a trial. The 769 F.2d at 1547. weighed length delay; factors to be are: delay; reason for defendant's assertion of Delay 1. Reason for right; to defendant. Id. delay length The first 9 months of were at 530. Under Barker the primarily delay "presumptively prejudicial" due to the state's desire to wait must be trigger inquiry for the decision of the Court of in order to into the other State, balancing Alabama in Beck v. 396 So.2d 645 three factors. Once the is com- (Ala.1981), bringing menced, single dispositive. its case.3 The no factor is However, although delay we must note that next 7 months of are attributable to Ringstaff's necessarily Ringstaff's request psychiatric defense need not evaluat impaired, Arizona, remaining delay have been Moore v. 414 ion.4 The 7 months of 188, 189, unexplained. 94 S.Ct. 38 L.Ed.2d surrounding Ringstaff's 1. The factual circumstances betweentheBeckdecisionand fully Ringstaff State, request plained. psychiatric crime are Setforth in for a examinationis unex- (Ala.Crim.App.1984). why 451So.2d375 Noevidencewasofferedto show immediately he couldnot havebeentried the Beckdecision. The state admittedat oral after previously 2. This Court has held that a 15 delay-even prosecuting complex investigation prepa- month conspiracy in that its and trial long completedby enough trigger ration had that time. case-can be balancing. Avalos, UnitedStatesv. (5thCir.), Delays E2d 970, 430U.s. 4. caused the defendantare excluded 52 L.Ed.2d363 trial claims. United States v. O'Bryant, (Speedy (11thCir.1985) 775F.2d during pre- TrialActtolled defendant's 3. The Alabama Court's decision in down, upon motions); Wainwright, Beckwashanded as modified deni- trial Hillv. 617F.2d rehearing, May6, 1981, (5th Cir.1980)(constitutionalspeedy al of after on some9 months claim). was arrested. The three month Su- the Alabama On March directly ble? delay is 16 months total of A it was severa- finally held majority preme Court state, attributable Ala- rest of upholding ble, thereby by the state’s consumed being time Beck framework. bama’s await decision appellant (Ala.1981). Between Neither State, in So.2d decision Court’s case single cite a on June able to decision appellee Court’s nor pro- dealing with March any jurisdiction decision pending a criminal delaying priety validity of 1981, the factually unrelated another Recognizing decision in doubt. Alabama evaluating However, guidance case. of Criminal situation, found can be legitimacy trying the state’s praised Appeals Wingo itself. following terms: in the Ringstaff stated in Barker Court The in the it was that opinion We are delay the attempt to deliberate that “[a] law, the according to justice interest should defense hamper the to in order that proceedings, judicial guiding star govern- the heavily against weighted all others and court, parties the the trial at 2192. 531, 92 at U.S. 407 ment.” it with handled this with concerned is “it that also noted The Court circumspection caution commendable delay to intentionally prosecution the chart ahead without rushing than rather over advantage [de- gain some tactical ‘to them. guide compass to or ” 531 Id. at them.’ toor harass fendants] (Ala. State, 451 So.2d (emphasis n. 32 at 2192 32, 92 S.Ct. n. successfully ar state Crim.App.1984). Marion, added), citing United appellate court Alabama the gued before 466, 455, 30 325, 307, 92 404 U.S. actually benefited delay the that Avalos, 541 (1971). also See 468 on a eventually convicted he was because delay (disapproving capital mur and not offense lesser included Therefore, “court-shopping”). by caused before explained However, state the der. area key the motivation state’s the compass” the “chart that Court inquiry. re-affirmation the it waited which Ring- after 1980, week the On penalty death the Alabama validity of handed arrest, Supreme Court staff’s statute.6 Alabama, 447 Beck v. in decision its down explanations state’s Having reviewed 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d U.S. Court decisions unconstitutional held Court (1980). The Beck, we penalty death the Alabama portion that prosecution (1975) delayed its seq. 13-11-1 et that find statute, Ala.Code § if thought included reason—it lesser one primarily forbade which (repealed), promptly, cases. See to trial capital brought it instructions offense reversing giv- 13-ll-2(a).5 In have considered might not trial court § Ala.Code essentially in- seems It conviction, penalty. the Court the death ing Beck’s 13-ll-2(a) have 14 words would last § likely that validated death statute. a defendant the death sentence hesitant reas- Court’s after remained issue important One death in Beck surance clause unconstitutional theWas un- constitutionally administered could be severa- penalty statute Alabama 13-ll-2(a) was con- § phrase in last Ala.Code repeal its 5. Before preclude instruc- read, jury the defend- strued 13-ll-2(a) finds "If the capital cases. offenses at death included punishment tion on guilty, fix the it shall ant at 2385 100 S.Ct. Beck, n. charged indictment atU.S. See when the and with following offenses any of n. 3. in the be averred must aggravation, which that this charged with indictment, argument, state admitted so which 6. At oral offenses any lesser maneuver." include a "tactical aggravation shall said decision added). (emphasis offenses” existing framework, prejudice. der the then minus thE not show actual Prince v. Ala Supreme Court, bama, (5th Cir.), clause struck down 507 F.2d might 423 U.s. 96 S.Ct. The trial court even have held that (1975)("prejudice capital L.Ed.2d 108 is immaterial the indictment itself on the charge where consideration of the other three flawed, given [sic] factors .. . coalesce in the defendant's of the Alabama murder scheme had favor"). Arizona, been called into doubt.7 See Moore v. 414 U.S. at (error require preju 94 S.Ct. at 189 primarily The reason for the seems defendant); dice to United States v. Mitch to have been the state's desire to enhance ell, 769 F.2d at 1547. The state had a Ringstaff's receiving chances of duty diligent, "constitutional to make a penalty. exactly type This is of maneu good-faith bring Ringstaff effort" gain advantage" ver "to some tactical promptly Hooey, to trial. Smith v. by Barker, is forbidden 407 U.S. at 531 n. 575, 579, 21 L.Ed.2d 32, 92 S.Ct. at 2192 n. 32. See also Gravit The state made no claim that it States, v. United lacked the evidence or witnesses Cir.1975) ("a deliberate try Ringstaff. Barker, to 531, See weighed heavily against the defense is government"); (reasonable 92 S.Ct. at 2192 amount of Baron, United States v. time to find witness is excusa F.Supp. 303, (S.D.N.Y.1971)(de 336 lay ble); Barragan, United States v. by prosecution's try caused desire to (11th Cir.1986)(Speedy 1258 Trial Act serially eleven defendants question due to novel period time tolled while essential witness presented of law in all cases held unavailable). spite Ringataff's In of dilatory). to be objections, kept the state him incarcerated put confidently The rationale forth the state and until the time it knew it could Appeals, impose the Alabama Court of Criminal ask a court to excuse-potentially prejudicial death. Such an delay actually Ringstaff, benefited in the ex is flawed. The state claims that the Ala- justify treme to a defendant-cannot dening bur Supreme right bama Court's decision in Beck a defendant's constitutional permitted Ringstaff speedy to be convicted of a a non-capital capi- offense rather than foregoing reasons, For the the denial of simply ignores tal murder. That port the im- is REVERSED and REMAND- Supreme previous Court's deci- ED with directions to the writ. sion in Beck. After the Court spoken, required had all state courts were charge lesser included offenses in their RONEY, Judge, dissenting: Chief by operation instructions respectfully dissent, supremacy I The Court con- clause. See U.S. Const. VI, cludes that need not demonstrate Art. gave Ringstaff nothing 2. The Alabama Court bringing already from the him to he did not trial in order to have his conviction set and, fact, away have took aside because the first three factors of the put that he could not be to death at all. delay pending Supreme Barker test Government. Critical to its reversal is the Court's decision made it much more likely put decision that it was for the state would be to death. prosecution pending a determi- Prejudice nation Court as weigh The first three factors to the of the state's death heavily against state, Ringstaff my judgment, so need statute. In the State could sought charging 7. The State its indictmentfor infirmstatuteand not ed the a lesserinclud- offense, murderafterthe U.S. Court'sdecision wouldhavebeenthe handiworkof Anypotential indictment, prosecution. in Beck. flawin the i.e., charging only capital murder under the

649 reasonable have found as the until Just time a reasonable wait legitimately inter- motions pretrial delay while so that the locutory appeals settled law was issue of critical this Ringstaff rea- resolved, it was actually suffered he to show had until to wait the Government failed to sonable this has he Since delay. set- lawof issue important very I affirm showing, would a such make to trial. See bringing corpus re- tled denial court’s district Hawk, 474 U.S. v. Loud States United lief. (1986) 640 L.Ed.2d 88 106 S.Ct. (Government’s con- trial brought to which interlocutory appeal following 23 months some of murder victed weight little accorded years two took Barker I assume which arrest, period his purposes balancing); Government Sixth raise dissent 788 Birmingham, Islands Virgin is no concerns, although there Amendment precise delay between Cir.1986) (18-month (3d 933 constitutional time Territo- where justified trial indictment rial implicated. to be applicabili- sought clarification U.S. Wingo, proceed- criminal Trial Act Speedy ty (“We cannot (1972) Abney v. United court); see in its ings in a long too long is say definitely how States, U.S. supposed justice where system address- (although (1977) L.Ed.2d ing speedy deliberate.”) but swift in the recognizes trial, Court claim jeopardy a double context are attributable months request those Seven to trial prior issues of some resolution psychiatric for a defendant’s appropriate). are excused and computation. evaluation speedy United evidence is no There Cir.1985). dilatory purpose F.2d 1528 faith to bad O’Bryant, due Hawk, 474 Loud See Government. involve remaining months panel Nine 656. The at until to wait by the Government a decision the Alabama was motive Government’s the that asserts to increase would this its rendered Supreme Court that likelihood the State, 396 So.2d Beck that decision (Ala.1981). receive Alabama Su- In that to maneuver anwas motive provision in that held preme Court advantage” over “tactical gain some prohibiting statute court state’s the trial speculates It defense. down as instructions —struck de offense a to sentence hesitant may have been States Su- by uncertainty the United unconstitutional of because to death fendant be sev- in June 1980—could preme Court prior to law surrounding the statute. the rest of fact finding ered no made The district such motive was State's such decision, Beck Until by the evidence. supported not finding is a statutory scheme capital entire the State’s the Government where case a is not This As doubt. spe or to delayed to harass stated, the Government Appeals Criminal defense, as such with cifically interfere cir caution and “commendable exercised particular a prevent trial to delaying ahead” rushing than cumspection rather testifying. United witness proceed to trial to it chose not when Cir.1976) (5th 1100, 1113 F.2d Avalos, 541 against charges pending 1656, 52 denied, cert. L.Ed.2d issue. a resolution v. Wain Arrant (1977); cf. (Ala.Crim.App.1984), State, 451 So.2d Ringstaff v. Cir.1972) 677, 681 wright, 468 No. t. cer justified not delay murder (two-year 1984). the Government (Ala., Had attorney offered only reason when possi faced the prosecution, it pursued the see [the want not “did that he con Ringstaff would have been bility that crime.”), acquitted be defendant] under a statute capital murder victed denied, 410 U.S. It would invalid. be determined later Rather, the Govern Ringstaff, a retry forced to have been then legal it could see if merely waited ment resources, es inefficient use particularly prosecu capital murder awith ly proceed likely it pecially where tion. convicted least he now would have dispense lightly requirement should ap charge for which very same be- prejudice the actual peals. necessarily cause to do so “severe results in the REHEARING AND ON PETITION FOR remedy of dismissal of the indict- REHEARING SUGGESTION FOR Barker, ment.” IN BANC is, at 2188. That the three Barker factors RONEY, TJOFLAT, Before Judge, Chief must indeed the HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHN- Government before should be SON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK, presumed. Indeed, in Barker itself there EDMONDSON, COX, Judges. Circuit was a five-year between the defend- ant’s arrest and with much of that BY THE COURT: time attributable to the State’s desire to A member this court in active service wait until the conviction of a co-defendant having requested poll application a on the testimony whose the defendant’s ing was believed rehearing majority and a banc Although conviction. not- judges of this having court in active service long period,” “too voted in granting rehearing favor of proceeded the Court nonetheless banc, analysis of whether the defendant had been prejudiced it, ultimately concluding he IT IS ORDERED that the above cause had not. shall oral reheard this court in banc with during the week of June Where, here, as was not the on a date to be fixed. hereafter result of a deliberate attempt “hamper specify briefing clerk will schedule for defense,” it should be afforded little filing of in previous banc briefs. The weight in Thus, the balance. I would re- panel’s opinion hereby VACATED. quire Ringstaff to show he suffered actual prejudice in prevail. order to The Court in Barker identified three interests which the Speedy Trial designed protect: “(i) prevent oppressive pretrial incarcera- tion; (ii)to anxiety minimize and concern of (U.S.A.), INC., ALIMENTA accused; (iii) the that U.S. at to limit the possibility Plaintiff-Appellant, the defense impaired.” will be at 2193. Of these interests, three Court charac- CARGILL, INCORPORATED, terized the cant. being third as signifi- the most Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-8771. only impairment evidence of to his Ringstaff’s defense was United Appeals, States Court of testimony that he was unable to particular contact witness Eleventh Circuit. named “Larry” who could have established Dec. an alibi for him. That complaint goes to the fact of his incarceration, an issue that he raised, has not and not length time between his arrest and trial. It is at arguable least time, less, that more was needed in order for to find this man and that claim is that he should have been free during the interven- ing period. rate, At any as the district court found and Ringstaff himself con- cedes, there were several alibi witnesses

who testify did as to his whereabouts on the date of the “Larry's” murder and testi- mony was merely cumulative of the testi- mony already presented at Without some showing preju- of actual

dice, the district court’s denial of a writ of corpus should be affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Terry Kent Ringstaff v. Dale Howard and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Don Siegelman

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Feb 6, 1989

Citation: 861 F.2d 644

Docket Number: 87-7573

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.