Opinion ID: 202788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Qualified Immunity on the First Amendment Claims

Text: 22 We review for abuse of discretion the district court's conclusion that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims of political discrimination and retaliation because they had failed to adequately assert the argument before the magistrate judge. 3 23 Defendants argue that the district court erred in refusing to entertain their arguments on qualified immunity with respect to the First Amendment claims. Specifically, they object to the holding that the defendants did not properly raise these arguments before the Magistrate-Judge. Defendants claim that they raised this defense in their motion for summary judgment when they argued broadly that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants point to three sentences in their motion for summary judgment which purportedly preserved their argument: (1) [D]efendants herein did not engage in any type of conduct that was violative of any of plaintiffs' constitutional rights; hence it is not plausible to conclude that defendants' actions were unlawful. Thus, this entitles defendants to qualified immunity, Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. 26 (emphasis added); (2) Moreover, the application as a matter of law of both the Mt. Healthy and privileged qualified immunity defenses warrants summary disposition of all claims at this stage of the proceedings, id. at 2 (emphasis added); and (3) Defendants in their personal capacity cannot be held liable in this case because they are cloaked by qualified immunity, id. at 25. 24 Defendants further argue that the specific reference to Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-284, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (holding that adverse action against a government employee cannot be taken if it is in response to the employee's exercise of constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms), in their motion's discussion of qualified immunity shows that Defendants asserted a qualified immunity defense to the First Amendment claims because Mt. Healthy is only relevant to the First Amendment. 25 Had Defendants raised a qualified immunity defense to the First Amendment claims before the magistrate judge, they would have been entitled to the district court's clearly erroneous or contrary to law review of the argument. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). But issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. De Araujo v. Gonzáles, 457 F.3d 146, 153 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990)). By Defendants' own admission, their arguments on this point were broad in scope, which means they can just as easily be characterized as vague; the qualified immunity section of their summary judgment motion never even mentioned the words First Amendment, political discrimination, or retaliation. We cannot say that Defendants' three sentences speaking to qualified immunity broadly and their single reference to Mt. Healthy satisfied their duty to spell out [their] arguments squarely and distinctly. Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985, 990 (1st Cir.1988). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Defendants waived their qualified immunity defense to the First Amendment claims. See id. at 990-91 ([Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)] does not permit a litigant to present new initiatives to the district judge. We hold categorically that an unsuccessful party is not entitled as of right to de novo review by the judge of an argument never seasonably raised before the magistrate.); Borden v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.1987) (Appellant was entitled to a de novo review by the district court of the [magistrate judge's] recommendations to which he objected, however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised. (internal citations omitted)). 26