Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Marsland, Marsland v. Norris, Fed. Civ. No. 88-219-2430
Jan 01, 1991OUTCOME: Dismissed, with prejudice
Upon accepting appointment as the first woman to head the Trials Division in the City attorney’s office in 1990, my extensive investigation of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) case against the ... 1st elected Prosecuting Attorney for the City revealed sufficient information to cause me to file an Amended Complaint in federal court alleging that ODC head Norris' prosecution of Marsland was commenced in bad faith for the sole purpose of harassment and intimidation in order to prevent the free exercise of Marsland's 1st and 14th amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The suit charged Norris with acting under color of state law and sought a permanent injunction against the ODC proceedings and a declaratory judgment that 1) Marsland's statements were protected speech, and 2) the petition was filed and prosecuted in bad faith for purposes of harassment and intimidation. A favorable ruling would have rendered Norris personally liable to Marsland for money damages. While preparing Marsland's defense in the pending ODC proceedings, I also directed the research and preparation of Marsland's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Opposition to the State's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Before a hearing was set on the motion to dismiss in federal court, ODC, through Norris, stipulated to dismiss the ODC petition in its entirety, with prejudice. The federal lawsuit was then also dismissed. This was the first and only time, head of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel was sued in Federal court. ODC 88-009-2220, Fed. Civ. No. 88-018-2229, Fed. Civ. No. 88-208-2419, Fed. Civ. No. 88-219-2430
