DONNA O. EPPS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LOUISE WATSON, AS TAX COMMISSIONER OF MADISON COUNTY AND INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, MADISON COUNTY, GEORGIA, DEFENDANT
Under the alleged facts, a reasonable public official in Tax Commissioner Watson’s place could not have believed that firing Epps from her job as a clerk did not violate First Amendment law. As a result, Tax Commissioner Watson is not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity with respect to Epps’ First Amendment claim at this stage of the case.
Moreover, the Amended Complaint states a cause of action sufficient to withstand a 12(b)(6) motion regarding Epps’ procedural due process claim. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Louise Watson’s motion to dismiss these claims based on qualified immunity. EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, CONCURS in the result. . At this procedural point, we, like the district court, accept as true the facts as set forth in Epps' Amended Complaint. See Wilson v. Strong, 156 F. 3d 1131, 1133 (11th Cir.1998) ("In reviewing a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the district court is required to accept the factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” (citation omitted)). .
In Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that heightened pleading was not to be applied in civil rights cases against municipalities, because municipalities were not entitled to immunity. The Supreme Court did not, however, address the propriety of the application of heightened pleading in civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the defendant is not a municipality. .
We agree with both the district court and counsel that this case is best construed as a pure political patronage case. See Terry v. Cook, 866 F. 2d 373, 377 (11th Cir.1999) (holding that when public employment is ”absolutely conditioned on political allegiance and not upon the content of expressions of political beliefs,” the political patronage analysis is appropriate).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Randall v. Jewel Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010)…essed whether a county tax commissioner clerk’s First Amendment rights were violated when she was discharged by the newly-elected tax commissioner for allowing the commissioner’s opponent to place campaign signs on her property. See Epps v. Watson, 492 F. 3d 1240, 1242 (11th Cir.2007). Analyzing the issue under Elrod-Branti and Terry, we concluded that Epps’ job did not “require[] her to function as the alter ego of the Tax Commissioner or ensure that the policies and goals of the office are implemented.”…
-
Burge v. Ferguson, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2008)…& n. 1 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 16, 2008) (concluding that Twombly and Erickson require abandonment of a heightened pleading standard). But see Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc., 541 F.3d 1269, 1274-75 (11th Cir.2008); Epps v. Watson, 492 F.3d 1240, 1242 (11th Cir.2007). 6 . But see Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 293-94 (3d Cir.2006); Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 765 n. 3 (7th Cir.2000). 7 . See also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511…
-
Battiste v. Lamberti, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (S.D. Fla. 2008)…Court will undertake this analysis with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims against Wilkin, Goodwein, and Barcelo. In so doing, the Court keeps in mind “the fact that we generally accord official conduct a presumption of legitimacy.” Epps v. Watson, 492 F.3d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir.2007) (internal quotation and citations omitted). However, as this is the BSO Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court must view all the evidence and all factual inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to Pla…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (25 total)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1980)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002)
- GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. OF Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998)
- Marsh v. Butler Cnty., 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1993)