954 F.3d 1151
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Liscomb, a former Lawrence County canine officer, was terminated and sought unpaid overtime; local news mistakenly reported he had filed suit.
- He sought a canine position with a Drug Task Force; he alleges prosecutor Henry Boyce (who Liscomb says had hiring authority) refused to hire him because of the perceived lawsuit and said the lawsuit "was holding [him] back" from hiring.
- Liscomb alleges Boyce conspired with Jeff Floyd and Tony Anglin to bring false criminal charges in retaliation; Liscomb was later acquitted.
- Liscomb sued Boyce, Anglin, and Floyd asserting claims under the FLSA (retaliation), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment and due process), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985/1986 (conspiracy), and various state-law claims; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court dismissed most federal and state claims (including as to FLSA, due process, conspiracy, sovereign/prosecutorial immunity) and denied leave to amend as futile; Liscomb appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (procedural) | Liscomb asserted Boyce retaliated by denying employment and bringing charges. | Boyce argued claim not meaningfully briefed below/on appeal. | Waived: claimant failed to present meaningful argument in opening brief, so claim forfeited. |
| FLSA anti-retaliation applicability | FLSA §215(a)(3) protects Liscomb from retaliation for pursuing overtime/pay. | FLSA protects only "employees"; prospective applicants are not employees. | Held for defendants: prospective employees are not covered by §215(a)(3); dismissal affirmed. |
| Due process (stigma-plus) | Boyce’s disclosure of charges and hiring interference altered Liscomb’s rights/status and denied a name-clearing hearing. | Alleged harm was reputational only; no loss of legal right or status. | Dismissed: stigma-plus not satisfied—only reputational harm alleged. |
| §§1985/1986 conspiracy | Boyce conspired to bring false charges in retaliation. | §1985(2) protects interference with federal judicial administration; no federal proceeding alleged. | Dismissed: §1985(2) limited to federal proceedings; §1985(3)/§1986 derivative and fail without §1985 predicate. |
| Leave to amend / futility | Proposed third amended complaint cures defects (adds hiring-authority allegations). | Amendments still fail to cure core pleading deficiencies; amendment would be futile. | Denial affirmed: amendment would be futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires plausible facts, not mere possibility)
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U.S. 369 (interpret statutes beginning with ordinary meaning of terms)
- Dellinger v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., 649 F.3d 226 (4th Cir.) (FLSA anti-retaliation does not cover prospective employees)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (stigma-plus requires more than reputational injury to implicate liberty or property)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutorial immunity for actions intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Brown v. Simmons, 478 F.3d 922 (Eighth Circuit application of stigma-plus test)
- Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Comm'n, 780 F.2d 1422 (§1985(2) construed to proscribe conspiracies interfering with federal—not state—judicial proceedings)