NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0212n.06 No. 09-5814 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

JUSTIN T. B ECKM AN, et al., P lai nt iffs- App e lle e s,

v. WI LLIA M BIV EN S, indiv idua llyand i n his off icial ca pa c it

y a s Sh e riff

of Monroe County, Tennessee, Defendan t-Appellant, and M ON RO E C OU NT Y, TEN NE SSEE, Defendan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE EA STER

N D ISTRIC T OF TEN N E SSEE

Before: G IBBO NS, RO G ER S, a nd K ETHL ED G E, C ir c uitJudg e s. JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , Circuit Judge. De fe nd ant– a pp e lla nt Willi a m B ive ns a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s pa

rt ia l de nia l of

summa ry jud g me nt o n q

ua lif ie d i mmuni ty

g ro un ds

. Plaintiffs–appellee s were employ ees of the Monroe County

Sherriff ’s Depa rtment and broug ht the instant suit when they

wer e discharg ed from employ ment afte r Bive ns was elec ted sherif f in 2006. Ninetee n plaintiffs claimed that the y had been discharg ed beca use they had supported the incumbent

c an d i d a t e i nt h e e l e c t i o n i n s t e a d o f B i v e n s . T h e y s u e d B i v e n s , i n h i s o f f i c i a l an d i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y, and Monroe County

under 42 U .S.C. § 1983, allegingthat Bive ns had dischar g ed them in retaliation09-5814, Bec kman v . Bivens

Wit h respe ct to t h e o t h er five plaintiffs, the district c ourt held that there was no g enuine 1 is s u e o f mate r ia l f

a c t f o r tr ia l an d g r an te d s u mm ar y ju d g me n t f

o r B ive ns. Bivens , 2 0 0 9 WL 1748738, at *3–7. for the e x erc ise of t heir First Amendment right t o assemble, thus violating their civil rig hts. After six plaintiffs wer e d ismiss ed voluntarily or for want of pr osecution, B ivens soug ht summary j u d g m e n t , a s s e rt i n g t h e d e f e n s e o f qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. The district cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt for Monroe County and Bivens in his official capa city

. Bec kman v . Bivens , No. 3:06-CV-384, 2009 WL1748738, at *8–9 (E.D. T enn. June 19, 2009). As for

Bive ns in his indi vidual capa city , the district court found that “the F irst Amendment sp e e c h a nd a ff ili a tio n r ig hts imp lic a te d in thi s c a se are c le arl y e sta bli sh e d [be c a

us e ] no r e a so na

ble officia l would think it lawful to terminate a g overnme nt e mploy ee beca use that employ ee suppor

ted the official’s opponent duringan ele ction.” Id. at *8. On the que stion of whether a constitutional vi olatio n o c c ur

re d, the c ourt

he ld t hat, a s to e ig ht o f t

he thi rt e e n r e ma ini ngpla int if fs , “ the re is 1

su ff ic ie nt c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e of a c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n for tho se e ig ht cl a ims to p ro c e e d to a jury .” Id. Rely ing on our decision in Gr iff ith v . Co bu rn , 473 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2007), the district

c ourt c on c lud e d th a t be c a

us e “ the re so lut ion

of thi s c a se wi ll d e pe nd , in

larg e pa rt , o n w hic h p art ie s’ version of e vents the jury believes, a

nd which witnesses the jury finds to be more cr ed i b l e[ , ]

. . . summary judgme nt is not appropriate.” Id. I n Johnson v. J

ones , the Supreme Court he ld that “a de fenda nt, entitled to invoke a qualifie d immunit y defe nse, may

not appea l a district court’s summar y judgme nt order insofar as that order de te rm ine s w he the r o r n ot the pr e tr ia l re c or d set s for th a ‘g e nu ine ’ iss ue of fa c t for tr ia l.” 51 5 U .S. 304, 319–20 (1995). “ [A] n i n t er locutory appea l conce rning this kind of issue in a sense make s unwise use of

appell at e co u rt s ’ t ime, by forc ing the m to decide in the c ontext of a le ss developed09-5814, Bec kman v . Bivens

re c or d, an iss ue ve ry

sim ila r t o o ne the y

may we ll d e c ide any

wa y late r, on a re c or d th a t w ill pe rm it a better decision.” Id. at 317. Her e, for eac h of the eig ht plaintiffs ag ainst whom summary judgme nt was de nied, the district c ourt found that ther e wa s a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to whether Bive ns’s dec ision to di schar g e them wa s motivated at least in par t by their political ac tiviti es. See Bivens , 2009 WL 1748738, at *3–7. B ivens continues to dispute these fa cts on appe al. He makes

no a tte mpt

to a rgue that the dis tr ic t c ourt a pp lie d inc or

re c t la w, ins te a d a

rguin g that th e re is a c tua lly no g enuine issue of

materia l fac t for trial. The ref ore, B ivens’s ca se is in the cate g ory of qualified immun ity c a se s n ot o pe n to int e rl oc uto ry a pp e a l. Ac c or din g ly , th e a

pp e a l is dis mis se d f

or la c k o f a

pp e llate ju risd ic tio n, and the c a se is

re tur ne d to the dis tr ic t c ourt

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.