Plaintiff Betty Grooms sued Defendants Judge Steven A. Privette and Alice Bell in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and a state law claim for abuse of process. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss Grooms’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Grooms, a Republican, was elected Clerk of the Circuit Court of Oregon County, Missouri in November 2018 and reelected in November 2022. Her Democratic opponent in the 2018 election, Bell, worked as a deputy clerk under Grooms until February 2022. In November 2021, Bell married Judge Privette, the presiding judge of the thirty-seventh Judicial Circuit, which includes Oregon County.
Around May 2022, Judge Privette asked Grooms to prepare a spreadsheet of criminal cases to track reimbursement of certain incarceration expenses. Grooms allegedly submitted several responses that Judge Privette rejected. On August 29, 2022, at Judge Privette’s direction, a motion for contempt was filed against Grooms. Grooms pursued writs of mandamus and prohibition against Judge Privette with the Missouri Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court issued a permanent writ of prohibition against Judge Privette, finding that he exceeded his authority by proceeding against Grooms for contempt.
Grooms alleges that the contempt proceedings were retaliation for her win over Bell in the 2018 election and that Bell conspired with Judge Privette to pursue the charges against her.
Legal Analysis
Adverse Employment Action:
The court found that Grooms inadequately alleged an adverse employment action, as required for her First and Fourteenth Amendment free speech retaliation claim. The contempt proceeding did not impact any condition of Grooms’ employment, and the alleged reason for initiating the proceeding was independent of her employment conditions.
Substantive Due Process Rights: The court determined that Grooms, as an elected official, lacks the requisite property interest in her position as Oregon County Clerk of Court. Additionally, Judge Privette’s stated reason for initiating the contempt proceeding, Grooms’ failure to adequately fulfill his records request, does not yield the necessary stigma to implicate a liberty interest.
Qualified Immunity: The court concluded that Judge Privette and Bell are entitled to qualified immunity because Grooms failed to state a claim for constitutional violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Even if a violation had been established, it would not have been clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Jurisdiction over State Law Claim: Having dismissed the federal claims, the court no longer exercised supplemental jurisdiction to consider Grooms’ state law abuse of process claim.
The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing Grooms’ federal claims with prejudice and her state law claim without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Schrag on Law 