Opinion ID: 532642
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants-Appellants' Burden of Proof under Zeigler/Rich

Text: 34 We must determine if defendants-appellants were acting within their discretionary authority when they voted not to re-elect Hudgins as Ashburn city clerk for 1986. Former Fifth Circuit cases, 16 hold that a government official proves that he acted within the scope of his discretionary authority by showing  'objective circumstances which would compel the conclusion that his actions were undertaken pursuant to the performance of his duties and within the scope of his authority.'  Rich, 841 F.2d at 1564 (quoting Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1121 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981)); see Douthit v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527, 534 (5th Cir.1980). In this case, the council members-defendants did not re-elect plaintiff Hudgins as Ashburn city clerk at their first regular meeting of 1986, on January 2, 1986. The election of the city clerk as well as other city officials who hold their office for one year is mandated to occur at the first regular city-council meeting by the Ashburn Code Sec. 4.1. All council members have submitted affidavits that they voted or abstained from voting for the city clerk for 1986 pursuant to the Ashburn Code, which provides that the city clerk is to be elected annually. In accordance with the objective dictates of the Ashburn Code, we conclude that defendants-appellants Barfield, Turner and Garner have met their burden of showing that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority as Ashburn city-council members when they did not re-elect Hudgins by voting for McLeod as city clerk. See Rich, 841 F.2d at 1564; Zeigler, 716 F.2d at 849. 35