Opinion ID: 3063679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Qualified Immunity Issue on Appeal

Text: In July 2003, we vacated that part of the district court’s February 2002 order addressing qualified immunity. In an unpublished opinion, we decided the facts in the record were sufficient to determine if the defendants had met their initial burden of proving they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority; we then remanded for the district court to rule on qualified immunity. Upon remand, the district court issued an order on April 13, 2004, concluding Hendrix, Singletary, and Waters were not entitled to qualified immunity and 1 Ultimately, among the state law claims, only the libel claims against Hendrix survived to trial. 6 denying their motions for summary judgment. The defendants appealed, and this litigation made its second journey to this Court. In September 2005, this Court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Hendrix, Singletary, and Waters. Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1256 (11th Cir. 2005). Addressing an issue of first impression, we adopted the “ordinary firmness” test in determining whether a defendant’s retaliatory conduct adversely affected a plaintiff’s protected speech. Id. at 1254. Applying the test to the evidence presented on summary judgment, this Court held Bennett and Reid had presented evidence of a First Amendment violation. Id. at 1255. Specifically, we concluded “the acts alleged here, if true, are sufficiently adverse that a jury could find they would chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment rights.” Id. Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, we held the law was clearly established so as to put the defendants on notice, stating “it is ‘settled law’ that the government may not retaliate against citizens for the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Id. at 1256. In concluding Bennett and Reid had demonstrated a constitutional violation, this Court explicitly noted a record “replete” with instances in which the defendants allegedly engaged the following retaliatory conduct: taking down 7 license tag numbers of cars at a forum in support of the referendum; setting up roadblocks near the plaintiffs’ homes; stopping the plaintiffs’ cars without reason and issuing false traffic citations; accessing government databases to obtain confidential information on the plaintiffs; attempting to obtain arrest warrants against the plaintiffs on trumped-up environmental charges; and mailing fliers to homes in Forsyth County depicting the plaintiffs as criminals terrorizing the county. Id. at 1249, 1254–55.