Allen Dyer v. MD State Board of Education
685 F. App'x 261
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Allen R. Dyer was a member of the Howard County Board of Education in Maryland; the County Board invoked the State Board of Education’s removal process against him under Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 3-701(g).
- Dyer received notice and a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ); while the ALJ later recommended removal, Dyer lost reelection and his term expired in December 2012 before a final decision issued.
- The State Board reviewed the ALJ recommendation and issued an opinion finding Dyer committed misconduct in office.
- Dyer sued in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Maryland Constitution, seeking declaratory relief that the removal process was illegal and damages for alleged violations of free speech, due process, and equal protection.
- The district court dismissed the suit; Dyer appealed. The Fourth Circuit considered whether declaratory relief or damages were available against the State Board, individual Board members, and the private law firm that represented the County Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of declaratory relief | Dyer sought a declaration that the State Board’s removal process was illegal | Defendants argued no live controversy because Dyer’s term expired and there is no practical relief | Court: No case or controversy—declaratory relief inappropriate because Dyer’s loss of office made any declaration nonremedial |
| Damages against State Board and official-capacity defendants (Eleventh Amendment) | Dyer sought damages from State Board and members | Defendants invoked sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment bar to damages against state entities/official-capacity defendants | Court: Eleventh Amendment bars damages against the State Board and members in official capacity |
| Damages against State Board members in individual capacity (quasijudicial immunity) | Dyer argued immunity should not apply; suit allowed against individuals | Defendants argued absolute/quasijudicial immunity applies because State Board performed judicial-like removal functions and Maryland provides adequate safeguards | Court: Individual-capacity claims barred by absolute/quasijudicial immunity given the adjudicative nature of removal proceedings and need to avoid harassment by suit |
| Damages against private law firm/attorney under § 1983 and Maryland Constitution | Dyer alleged the lawyers acted under color of state law / as government agents | Defendants argued private counsel merely represented the County Board and did not perform state functions or act as government agents | Court: Law firm/attorney not state actors under § 1983 nor government agents under Maryland Constitution; claims against them fail |
Key Cases Cited
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (declaratory-judgment requires concrete case or controversy)
- Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for dismissal)
- Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for dismissal)
- Lytle v. Griffith, 240 F.3d 404 (4th Cir.) (Eleventh Amendment immunity against damages suits)
- Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245 (4th Cir.) (quasijudicial immunity analysis)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (absolute/procedural immunity for adjudicative officials)
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (private counsel do not act under color of state law merely by representing public clients)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (distinguishing when private actors perform legally required state functions)
- Manikhi v. Mass Transit Admin., 758 A.2d 95 (Md.) (Maryland Constitutional claims require government-agent status)