### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Octob er 6 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1206 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-01257 -CV -W SD -1 JEROM E CALVERT, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us FULTON COUNTY , GEORGIA, CLERK OF SUPERIOR C OURT, JUANITA HICKS, ET AL., D ef en da nts -Appe llants
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 6, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:As fo r A pp e lla nts ’ c ha lle ng e to t

he de nia l of

qu a lif ie d immun ity

on Ca lve rt ’s F ourt e e nth 1 Amen d m en t claims, we a re unpe rsuade d by

Appellants’ a

rguments and af

firm the district cour

t’s c on c lus ion

tha t th e a lle g a tio ns of

Ca lve rt ’s c omp la int

we re su ff ic ie nt to de fe a t a

qu a lif ie d immun ity de fe ns e . Ca lve rt

a lso su e d F ult on County , Ge or g ia and Hi c ks , in he r o ff ic ia l c a pa c ity . T ho se c la ims wer e dismissed, pursuant t o Fe d. R. Civ. P. 12(b)( 6), for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief c an be g ra

nte d. On ly the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of qu a lif ie d immun ity

to t he ind ivi du a l de fe nd ants on the F ir st A me ndme nt c la ims is b e fo re us . 2 Juanita Hicks, Tina Rob inson , and Phy llis Brown (c ollectively , “ Appellants”), proceeding in th eir individu al capac ities, appeal the district court’ s denial of qualified im m uni ty in Pl ai nti ff

Je ro m e Ca lve rt ’ s 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 ac tio n a lle gin g vi ola tio ns of his F irst Am endm ent rights of free speech and association. The claim s asserted 1 by Calvert, w ho is bl ack, we re based on alleged adverse e m ploy m ent actions taken ag ai nst him af te r he sup porte d th e candi da cy of aw hit e pol iti ca l op pone nt o f H ic ks. A ppe llants a rg ue the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by de ny ing qua lif

ie d im m uni ty be ca use no cl earl y e sta bli she d law ga ve Appe llant s “ fa ir w ar nin g” tha t the c ondu ct

se t f orth i n Cal ve rt’s c om

pl ai nt was u nl awfu l. W e re vie w de nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s ho ldi ng tha t pu bli c of fi ci al s a re not
en tit le d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty be ca

use the y vio la te d cl earl y

e sta bli she d law . Joh nson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d 1087 , 1090 (11th Cir
. 1996 ). Af ter thoroug h reviewof the rec ord
a n dth e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s , w e a f f i rm.At thi s p ro c e dura l po int , w e , li ke the dis tr ic t c ourt , a c c e pt a s tr ue the fa c ts a s se t f

or th i n 2 C al v er t ’s co mp l ai n t
. S ee W i l s o n v . S t ro n g, 1 5 6 F. 3 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 3 (1 1 t hC i r. 1 9 9 8 )( “In r ev i ew i n g a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunit y , the district c ourt is r equire d to a ccep t t h e factual allegations in the plaintiff' s complaint as true a nd drawall rea sonable infe renc es in favor of the plaintiff.”)
. 3 T he f ac ts r el ev an t t o the qua lif ie d im m uni ty an al y sis ar e str ai ght fo rw ar d a nd la rg el y und isp ute d. P ri or to init ia tin g this la w sui t, Ca lve rt w as ane m plo y ee in the 2 of fi ce o f t h e C l e rk o f S up e r i o r C o u rt o f F u l t o n C o u n t y , G e o r g i a . A p p e l l a n tH ic ks hol ds, a nd h as he ld, the e le ct ed of fi ce of Cl er k of th e Su pe ri or

Co urt of F ult on Countysince 1988
. Appellants Robins on and Brown are both m anagem ent-level
em plo y ee s in the Cl er

k’ s of fi ce . In his co m

pla int , Ca lve rt

a lle ge d th at

the Appe llants dis cr im ina te d a nd r et al ia te d a ga ins t hi m , ba se d onr ac e, a ft er he pub lic ly

e ndor se d,
an d op en ly

a nd p ubl ic ly

pa rt ic ipa te d inc am

pa igne ff orts o n be ha lf

of , L ew is P ittm an , a w hit e candi da te fo r the Cl er k of Co urt posi tio n. Ca lve rt a lle ge d th at

the de fe nda nts ,

“ al l of w hom a re bla ck , w er e inf

ur ia te d ov er

the de ci si on of

Ca lve rt , w ho i s a lso bl ack , to su pp or t Pi tt m an (who is whi te ) ov er Hi ck s i n t he up co m in g e le c t i o n.” Calvert state d t h at the adverse em ploy m ent actions taken against him included

“ de m eanin g an d unw el co m e tr an sf er s an d j ob as sig nm en ts[ ;] bogu s, c ontri ve d, a nd p r e t e x tu a l ‘w r i t e - up s ’ a n dr e p r i man d s [ ; ] u np a i ds u s p e n s i o n s [ ; ] a n du l t i mat e l y, in vo lu nt ary te rm in at io n o f em pl oym en t.”When Calvert filed his complaint, it was unc lear whether he asse rted pure political 3 patrona g e cla ims, pure expression claims, or m ixe d p a tr o n ag e/expression claims. See Te rry v. Cook, 866 F.2d 373, 375- 77 (11th Cir. 1989) (distinguishing b etween these ty pes of c laims) . After Appellants moved to dismiss based on Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 6), ar g uing Ca lv er t failed to state a claim upon which r elief c ould be g rant ed , C al v ert clarified that his claims were purely of the
“ po lit ic a l patr on a g e ” va

ri e ty . We c on sid e r t

he m a s su c h in

thi s a pp e a l. 4 Appellants m oved to dism iss the com plaint, arguing, inter alia, that they we re
en tit le d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty on C al ve rt ’ s p ure pol iti ca l pa tr ona ge c la im s. 3 Q ua lif ie d im m uni typr ote ct s go ve rn m en t a ct or s pe rf orm ing dis cr et ion ar

y f unc tio ns fr om be ing sue d in the ir ind ivi dua l ca pa ci tie s. K ing sland v. Ci ty of Mi am i, 382 F
. 3d 1230 , 123 1- 32 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4)
. T he doc tr ine shi el ds g ove rn m en t of fi ci al s f ro m li ab il it y to t h e ex te nt th at “ th ei r co nd uc t d oe s n ot vi ol at e cl earl y est ab li sh ed
. . . c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s o f w h i c h a r e a s o n ab l e p e r s o n w o u l d h a v e k n o w n . ” H a rl ow v. Fi tz ge ral d, 4 57 U.S. 80 0, 8 17 -1 8, 1 02 S. Ct. 2 72 7, 7 3 L. Ed. 2 d 3 96 (19 82 ). A gov er nm en t of fi ci al w ho i s su ed

und er § 19 83 m ay

se ek sum m ar y j udgm en t on the grou nd that he is entit led to qualified imm unity
. Hollom an ex rel. Hollom an v. H a r l a nd , 3 70 F
. 3d

1 25 2, 1 26 3 ( 11 t h C i r . 2 00 4)
. T o be e l i gi bl e f or q ua lified im m unity, t h e o fficial m

ust first establish that he wa s perform ing a “ discretionary fu nc tio n” a t the ti m e the a lle ge d vi ola tio n of f ed er al law oc cu rr ed
. I d. a t 12 63- 64. O nc e the of

fi ci al ha s e sta

bli she d th at he w as en ga ge d in adis cr et ion ar y f unc tio n, the plaintiff bears the burden of dem onstrating that the official is not entit led to qualified im m uni ty
. I d. a t 12 64. I n or de r to d em onstra te tha t the of fi ci al is not

e nti tle d to5

qual i f i e d i m m un i t y , t he p l a i nt i f

f m us ts ho w t w o t hi ng s: ( 1) t ha tt he d e f e nd a nt has
c o m m itt ed ac onst itu tio na l vi ola tio n a nd ( 2) tha t the c onst itu tio na l r igh t the de fe nda nt vio la te d wa s “ cl earl y

e sta bli she d” a t the ti m e he did it
. S au ci er

v. K at z, 533 U
. S. 194 , 201, 121 S
. Ct
. 215 1, 150 L
. E d. 2d 2 72 ( 2001 ); H ollom an , 3 70 F.3 d at 1 264. T his tw o- s t e p i n q u i ry

i s d e s i g n e dt o “ p r o v i d e [ ] a m p l e p r o t e c t i o n t o a l l b u tt h e p l a i n ly incom petent or those who kno wingly viola t e t he law. ” Malley v. Br iggs, 475 U.S
. 335, 341, 106 S. Ct. 1092 , 89 L . E d. 2d 271 (198 6). T he dis tr ic t c ourt, appl y ing E lr od v
. Bu rn s, 427 U
. S. 347 , 96 S
. Ct
. 267 3, 49 L
. E d. 2d 5 47 ( 1976 ), a nd B ranti v. F ink el , 445 U
. S. 507, 100 S. Ct
. 1287 , 63 L
. E d. 2d 5 74 ( 1980 ), the Su

pr em e Cou rt ’ s sem ina l ca se s onpol iti ca l pa tr ona ge c la im s, he ld the f oll ow ing : Here, it is u ndi sput ed

tha t the I ndi vid

ua l D ef en da nts w er e pe rf

orm ing discretio n ar y functions at the tim e the alleged violation o f fe deral law occu rred , a nd tha t P la int if f’ s a lle ga tio ns, if

tr ue , m ay e sta bli sh a co nst itu tio na l vi ola tio n. Fu rthe r, a lth oughthe I ndi vid ua l D ef en da nts ar g u e th e l aw

w as not cl earl y e sta bli she d th at

a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct iona ga ins t a sin gle em plo y ee - - as opp ose d to a n en m ass e f ir ing or the fir in g of m

ult ipl e em ploy ees -- could giv e rise to a political patron ag e cl ai m , the C ourt fi nds Pl ai nti ff al le ge s fa ct s w hic h, if pr ove n tr ue , m ay de fe at ac la im of qua lif ie d im m uni ty
. (S ee Co m

pl. ¶ 23 ( al le gin g I ndi vid

ua l D ef en da nts ’ dis ch ar ge d othe r Cl er

k’ s of fi ce e m pl oyees ba se d onthe ir

sup port of Pi tt m an )).6

(c ita tio ns o m itt ed ) (e m

pha sis ad de d)
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed tha t be ca

use Calvert’ s com

plaint alle g ed num erous discharges, and not just his own, sum m ary j udgm ent b as ed on qualified imm unitywa s not warr anted on Calvert’ s polit ical pa tro na ge cla im s. O n th e lim ite d r ec or d be fo re us, w e cann ot sa y th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by
co nc lud ing tha t, if the al le ga tio ns i n C al ve rt ’ s c om pla int a re tr ue , w hic h w e too m

ust
as su m e th ey

are, Ap pe ll an ts ’ qu a li fie d i m m un it y de fen se fai ls . Accor di ng ly, we af fi rm the de nia l of

sum m ar y j udgm en t a t this poi nt i n th e pr oc ee din gs. AFFIRMED.