Opinion ID: 23726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: second action without prejudice.

Text: Meekins was employed as a Family Security Program Specialist II in the Family Before consolidation, the defendants Independence Work Program (“FIND”) of the perfected an interlocutory appeal to this court; Louisiana Department of Social Services. Her we dismissed the monetary claims on the employment was terminated, so she sued, ground of sovereign immunity, leaving intact complaining that her termination was the claims for injunctive relief. Meekins v. retaliatory, in violation of the First Amend- Foster, No. 99-30583, at 6-7 (5th Cir. April 3, ment. 2000) (unpublished). We declined, however, to rule on the individual capacity claims, be- Meekins’s original complaint sought in- cause they had not been consolidated with the junctive and monetary relief, naming appellants original action until after the defendants had and other officials in their official capacities filed their notice of appeal. Id. at 6. only. The defendants, claiming qualified immunity, filed a motion seeking either On remand and after consolidation, dismissal or judgment on the pleadings, or defendants moved for dismissal of the alternatively, a more definite statement of the individual capacity claims, and the court claims. In response, and pursuant to Schultea dismissed the claims against all defendants v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427 (5th Cir. 1995) (en except appellants, with respect to whom the banc), the district court ordered Meekins to submit a reply under FED. R. CIV. P. 7(a) 1 addressing qualified immunity.1 The court (...continued) When a public official pleads the af- firmative defense of qualified immunity in 1 Schultea established the use of a rule 7(a) his answer, the district court may, on the reply to resolve the inherent conflict between the official’s motion or on its own, require the Federal Rules’ notice pleading procedures and the plaintiff to reply to that defense in detail. substantive right of qua lified immunity, which By definition, the reply must be tailored to requires that a plaintiff allege with particularity the assertion of qualified immunity and those facts necessary to overcome a qualified im- fairly engage its allegations. munity defense: (continued...) Shultea, 47 F.3d at 1433. 2 court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in that support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Anderson v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. after a fair reading of the Complaint as a Dist., 184 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 1999) whole and plaintiff’s Schultea reply, (quoting Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995)). state a claim for violation of her civil rights. She alleges that she was fired be- With respect to claims against which cause she spoke out about welfare and qualified immunity can be a defense, however, welfare reform, and was critical of the we require a heightened standard of pleading, way the state handled welfare reform. whereby the plaintiff must allege specific conduct giving rise to a constitutional