Lockhart v. Matthew , 83 F. App'x 498 ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-23-2003
Lockhart v. Matthew
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-2914
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Lockhart v. Matthew" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 33.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/33
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2914
ALSON LOCKHART, SR.,
Appellant,
v.
MAVIS L. MATTHEW, M.D.; HERBERT SANDERS, M.D.;
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-00129)
District Judge: The Honorable Stanley S. Brotman
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 8, 2003
BEFORE: NYGAARD, BECKER, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 23, 2003)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Pro Se Appellant Alson Lockhart, Sr. brought suit against Appellees Mavis
L. Matthew, Herbert Sanders, and the Government of the Virgin Islands (collectively “the
Government”) when his application for renewal of his emergency medical technician
(“EMT”) license was denied. The District Court held a bench trial and entered a
judgment in favor of the Government. Lockhart appeals and we will affirm.
I.
Because the facts are known to the parties, we review them only briefly. In
the Virgin Islands, EMTs are licensed by the territorial government. EMT licenses are
valid only for two years and must be renewed for each period thereafter. To obtain an
EMT license, an applicant must: (1) nationally register; (2) complete a four-year high
school course of study or the equivalent; (3) be able to lift and carry 100 pounds (the “lift
and carry requirement”); (4) have a valid Virgin Islands driver’s license; (5) successfully
complete the Emergency Defensive and Evasive Driving course; and (6) verify good
character and good physical and mental health. V.I. Exec. Order No. 233-1979, § 2(a)(1)-
(6) (Filed June 25, 1979). The requirement at issue in this case is Lockhart’s ability to lift
and carry 100 pounds. The Government does not require applicants to undergo a physical
2
test, but relies on the applicant’s designation in a “yes” or “no” box as to whether he can
meet the lift and carry requirement.
Lockhart was first licensed as an EMT in 1980 and renewed his license
every two years thereafter. In 1992, Lockhart suffered a back injury and was off the job
for four months. He reinjured his back in 1998, went on disability for two months, and
upon returning to duty served a temporary assignment as a dispatcher because he was
unable to meet the physical demands of an EMT. From 1999 to 2000, Lockhart acted as a
“third-party” on EMT dispatches, meaning he was an extra person not relied upon to do
lifting and carrying.
When Lockhart sought renewal of his EMT license in March 2000, he filled
out the application form and on the lift and carry question checked that “yes,” he could
meet the requirement, but noted a cross-reference to disability information from his
doctor. The doctor’s note that was appended to Lockhart’s application recommended
“light duty” and indicated that Lockhart should do no lifting over ninety pounds.
Based on the contradictory information in Lockhart’s
application—Lockhart said he could meet the lift and carry requirement but his doctor
indicated Lockhart could lift only ninety pounds, less than the 100-pound threshold—the
Government could not rely solely on Lockhart’s checking the “yes” box. The Director of
Emergency Services consulted Lockhart’s personnel file and discovered that Lockhart
had been limited in his lifting and carrying activities since 1999. The Government
3
interpreted the aggregated information to show that Lockhart could not meet the lift and
carry requirement and therefore denied his application for EMT license renewal. The
Government then granted Lockhart three extensions of time to show he could meet the lift
and carry requirement, but Lockhart failed to provide such information until after the
third extension had expired.
Lockhart filed suit against the Government, making claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and 48 U.S.C. § 1561. The District Court denied pretrial motions from both
parties that would have prevented trial. The case proceeded to trial without a jury, and on
May 30, 2002, the District Court issued a judgment in favor of the Government. We have
jurisdiction over Lockhart’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II.
A.
Findings of fact made by a District Court during a bench trial shall be set
aside by this Court only if clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); see also Newark
Branch, NAACP v. City of Bayonne, 134 F.3d 113, 119-20 (3d Cir. 1998). We exercise
plenary review over questions of law. See Riley v. Taylor, 277 F.3d 261, 278 (3d Cir.
2001) (en banc).
B.
Lockhart challenges the District Court’s judgment on various grounds, most
of which warrant little discussion here. Contrary to Lockhart’s assertions, Executive
4
Order 233-1979 is legally valid and unambiguous as to the need for all applicants, both
new and renewal, to meet the lift and carry requirement. The District Court found that the
Government reasonably concluded Lockhart could not satisfy the requirement. We agree.
In support of his equal protection claim, Lockhart points to other EMTs
licensed by the territory who suffer from back problems. Lockhart alleges he is similarly
situated to these individuals whose injuries were accommodated. As the District Court
noted, Lockhart fails to appreciate that he is not similarly situated because he failed to
provide any information to rebut his doctor’s indication that he could not carry over
ninety pounds. The Government provided Lockhart ample time—three extensions—to do
so, yet the information was delayed for more than three months.
Lockhart’s due process claim consists of assertions that, as an EMT with
nineteen years experience, he was a tenured public employee with a property interest in
his license. Unlike cases where this Court has been willing to recognize a property
interest in a license, Lockhart’s EMT license expired every two years. Cf. Herz v.
Degnan, 648 F.2d 201, 208 (3d Cir. 1981) (holding that a person had a property interest
in a professional license that was automatically renewed). Natural expiration of the
license negates any claim that it is a property interest protected by the due process clause.
Finally, Lockhart claims that the District Court erred by evaluating the
propriety of the Department of Health’s license renewal decision, as opposed to the as yet
unrendered Public Employees Relations Board (“PERB”) decision. We are unpersuaded.
5
Lockhart controlled the timing of his suit and clearly cannot complain about the District
Court’s failure to review an administrative decision that has not yet been made.
III.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment in
favor of the Government.
6
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge