Blevins v. Hudson
489 S.W.3d 165
Ark.2016Background
- Ken Blevins was elected Sebastian County Circuit Clerk; David Hudson was county judge. Deputies filed sexual-harassment grievances against Blevins in 2011.
- Hudson appointed grievance committees that found Blevins had sexually harassed employees and later unlawfully retaliated against two deputies; committees ordered remedial action and Hudson entered an order incorporating findings and directing Blevins to retain the deputies.
- The county’s six circuit judges adopted Hudson’s order; Blevins did not appeal those proceedings.
- Blevins sued Hudson (officially and individually) and the Association of Arkansas Counties for abuse of process, false light, ultra vires acts, constitutional violations, and related claims; he also sought summary judgment on ultra vires theory.
- Hudson and the Association moved for summary judgment asserting absolute (judicial) immunity for the order, qualified immunity for other acts, statute-of-limitations and pleading defects; the circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding Hudson entitled to immunity on all claims and the Association had no independent liability pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was premature while discovery continued | Blevins contended factual disputes remained about motive, malice, causation, and ongoing discovery | Hudson argued entitlement to immunity as a matter of law, so no genuine issue precluded judgment | Denied: immunity disposition resolved claims; summary judgment proper |
| Whether Hudson’s entry of the order and related actions were judicial/quasi-judicial (absolute immunity) | Blevins argued the grievance process and order were ultra vires and not entitled to judicial immunity | Hudson argued the order was a quasi‑judicial act requiring legal conclusions and thus absolute judicial immunity applied | Held for Hudson: entry of the order was quasi‑judicial; absolute immunity applied to claims arising from the order |
| Whether Hudson was liable in individual capacity (qualified immunity) | Blevins alleged constitutional/statutory violations and publicity causing false light and electoral harm | Hudson invoked qualified immunity and Arkansas statutory immunity shielding county officials; also argued pleading failed to allege violation of clearly established rights | Held for Hudson: complaint failed to plead violation of clearly established rights; qualified immunity applied |
| Whether the Association of Arkansas Counties is liable | Blevins sought to impute Hudson’s liability to the Association as insurer/agent of county liability | Association argued no independent policy/custom alleged and Hudson immune, so no basis for liability | Held for Association: no independent liability pled and Hudson immune, so summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Stern, 338 Ark. 332 (judicial immunity for quasi‑judicial public officers)
- Robinson v. Langdon, 333 Ark. 662 (factors for determining judicial nature of acts)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (framework for judicial‑immunity analysis)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (qualified‑immunity standard described)
- Hall v. Jones, 2015 Ark. 2 (absolute judicial immunity explained)
- Key v. Curry, 2015 Ark. 392 (pleading requirement for showing violation of established rights)