Bruce Anderson v. State of Texas
845 F.3d 580
5th Cir.2016Background
- Bruce Anderson, a longtime Texas-licensed attorney and former briefing/research attorney for the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, filed a letter to the Texas Supreme Court and a disciplinary complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct alleging Chief Justice Rogelio Valdez double‑billed travel expenses.
- Anderson alleged he sent the communications on his own initiative, requested confidentiality, and that the Commission opened an investigation; Justice Vela (his supervisor) had previously informed him of her concerns but did not ask him to report them.
- Anderson interviewed and was accepted as senior briefing attorney by Justice Perkes, but before starting Valdez allegedly told the other justices not to allow Anderson to be hired, and Anderson’s hiring was rescinded.
- Anderson sued Valdez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (individual and official capacities) for First Amendment retaliation; Valdez moved to dismiss asserting failure to state a claim and qualified immunity.
- The district court denied Valdez’s motion; Valdez appealed interlocutorily the denial of qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of qualified immunity and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson’s communications were protected speech under the First Amendment (citizen vs. employee speech) | Anderson spoke as a citizen on matters of public concern (reported externally to the Supreme Court and Commission; acted on his own initiative) | Valdez contends Anderson spoke pursuant to his official duties (ethical/professional duties as an attorney/public employee), so Garcetti bars protection | Court: Anderson plausibly alleged he spoke as a citizen outside his official duties; speech was protected and concerned public malfeasance |
| Whether Anderson adequately alleged Valdez knew of the speech and that the speech caused the adverse action | Anderson alleged Valdez knew of the complaint and instructed justices to block his hire; alleged causation | Valdez argued confidentiality of the submissions and lack of pled factual basis that he knew | Court: Allegations that Valdez knew and retaliated are sufficient at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage; plaintiff not required to plead the source of Valdez’s knowledge |
| Whether qualified immunity shields Valdez for blocking the hire | Anderson: by 2010 Fifth Circuit law clearly established that externally directed speech outside job duties is protected; Valdez had fair warning | Valdez: law was not clearly established in analogous circumstances (post‑Garcetti uncertainty; Lane created additional nuance) | Court: Qualified immunity denied because existing Fifth Circuit precedent (e.g., Cutler) gave fair warning that such whistleblower speech was protected; immunity unavailable at this stage |
| Pleading standard applicable when defendant asserts qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss | Anderson: ordinary Rule 8(a) applies; no heightened pleading required | Valdez: invoked Schultea to argue heightened pleading should apply | Court: Apply Rule 8(a) (short and plain statement); Schultea does not impose a heightened standard for the complaint; district court may require a tailored reply in its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing public‑employee speech against employer interest in efficient public service)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (defines public‑concern inquiry for employee speech)
- Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014) (clarifies Garcetti: critical question is whether speech is ordinarily within scope of duties; testimony may be protected)
- Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 767 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 2014) (Fifth Circuit ruled by 2010 law clearly established that externally directed speech outside job duties is protected)
- Williams v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 480 F.3d 689 (5th Cir. 2007) (speech made in course of performing job duties is unprotected under Garcetti)
- Howell v. Town of Ball, 827 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2016) (analyzes ‘‘ordinary’’ duties post‑Lane and application for qualified immunity)