Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Mummau, O. Howard v. Ranck, Michael, District Attorney, Lancaster County, Buckwalter, Ronald, Former District Attorney, Lancaster County

687 F.2d 9

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1982-08-12
Topic: bankruptcy

holding that an assistant district attorney (ADA) who only prosecuted juvenile cases and was not involved in the policymaking details of the office was a policymaker because regardless of whether the ADAs actually exercised all their powers, the powers granted to ADAs were broad | "That an assistant district attorney 'could conceivably operate in such a legal/technical manner,' or that appellant in fact so limited himself to the role described is irrelevant." | position of assistant district attorney is one for which party affiliation is an appropriate requirement | “That an assistant district attorney ‘could conceivably operate in such a legal/technical manner,’ or that appellant in fact so limited himself to the role described is irrelevant.” | affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants

Citator

Cited by: 40 opinions

MUMMAU v. RANCK,687 F.2d 9(3rd Cir. 1982)

MUMMAU, O. HOWARD, APPELLANT, v. RANCK, MICHAEL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

LANCASTER COUNTY, BUCKWALTER, RONALD, FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LANCASTER

COUNTY.

No. 82-1075.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) August 2, 1982.

Decided August 12, 1982.

Page 10

Dona S. Kahn, Harris Kahn, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Joseph W. McGuire, Joseph P. Green, Krusen, Evans Byrne, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Michael Ranck and Ronald Buckwalter.

LeRoy S. zimmerman, Atty. Gen., Susan J. Forney, Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attys. Gen., Chief, Sp. Litigation, Harrisburg, Pa., for amicus curiae Atty. Gen. of Com. of Pa.

David W. Heckler, Ann A. Osborne, Pa. Dist. Attys. Ass'n, Doylestown, Pa., for amicus curiae Pa. Dist. Attys. Ass'n.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Before ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges, and RE,^fn*Chief Judge.

[1]OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

[2] InNess v. Marshall,660 F.2d 517(3d Cir. 1981), we determined that as a matter of law the positions of city solicitor and assistant city solicitor were those for which party affiliation was an appropriate requirement for effective performance and therefore a mayor's dismissal of those attorneys for reasons of their political affiliation did not violate the First Amendment. In the present case,Mummau v. Ranck,531 F. Supp. 402 (E.D.Pa. 1982), the district court used kindred reasoning and determined that the plaintiff's employment as an assistant district attorney brought him within the exemption of the rule ofElrod v. Burns,427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), andBranti v. Finkel,445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980). The plaintiff has appealed. We affirm essentially for the reasons set forth inNess v.Marshall,as applied to the facts here by the district court. Additionally, the district court considered and applied appropriate Pennsylvania statutory and case law relating to the obligations of Pennsylvania's district attorneys and their assistants. We specifically reject appellant's contention that his function was purely technical and ministerial and that therefore political affiliation would be an inappropriate criterion for employment. That an assistant district attorney "couldconceivablyoperate in such a legal/technical manner," or that appellantin factso limited himself to the role described is irrelevant.See Ness,660 F.2d at 521;Mummau,531 F. Supp. at 405.

[3] The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.Page 11

Honorable Edward D. Re, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. ↩