JOHN D. SCHOFIELD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, FLORIDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court's dismissal order must be vacated and the case reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York.
John D. Schofield sued Volusia County for alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations after being terminated without notice or hearing for polit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right Of Free Speech cases and more on FLexlaw
[*730] PER CURIAM:
John D. Schofield brought this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint, which sought money damages from Volusia County, Florida, for alleged violations of his rights under the first and fourteenth amendments. Schofield was an employee of the county until terminated, without notice or hearing, for engaging in politically related activity. He claims that such a termination was in violation of his right to free speech.
Volusia County filed a motion to dismiss Schofield’s complaint, challenging whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and whether the complaint stated a claim on which relief could be granted.
The district court, in granting this motion, concluded that it had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976), but that the alleged first amendment violation did not state a claim. The court below concluded that it did not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
The court relied on Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 169, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1960), in concluding that a county is not a person within the ambit of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970).
The court reasoned that it did not have jurisdiction under section 1343 over Schofield’s suit on the premise that section 1343 presupposes a violation of section 1983 or another similar statute. In determining that Schofield’s complaint failed to state a claim, the district court considered the absence of a valid section 1983 claim to be determinative.
While Schofield’s appeal was pending in this court, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York,-U.S.-, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), which overruled Monroe v. Pape insofar as it held local governments wholly immune from suit under section 1983. In light of Monell, we vacate the district court’s order, remand the cause, and direct that Schofield’s complaint be reconsidered. We intimate nothing as to the merits of Schofield’s claim.
VACATED and REMANDED with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978)
- Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1961)