Gentilello v. Rege
627 F.3d 540
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- Gentilello, a tenured professor of surgery at UT Southwestern, held the Chair Positions in Burns/Trauma and a named Chair until March 2007.
- He alleges Rege (Chair of Surgery) and Gilman (Dean) demoted him from the Chair Positions after Gentilello complained about Parkland Hospital care.
- Gentilello filed §1983 claims alleging First Amendment retaliation and due process violation based on the demotion.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings on the due process claim, finding no constitutionally protected property interest in the Chair Positions and thus qualified immunity for Defendants; it denied leave to amend.
- Gentilello sought to supplement with a new claim about removal from Parkland’s trauma call rotation in July 2008, arguing it violated due process.
- The district court dismissed Gentilello’s claims with prejudice and denied leave to amend or supplement; Gentilello appeals the rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a property interest in the Chair Positions | Gentilello asserts a property interest created by contract or policy. | Defendants argue no state-law or contract creates a protected property interest in the Chair Positions. | No protected property interest shown; due process claim fails. |
| Leave to amend after deadline | Gentilello could cure deficiencies with additional facts if given leave to amend. | District court acted within discretion; no good cause to amend after scheduling deadline. | District court did not abuse discretion in denying amendment. |
| Leave to supplement with Parkland trauma call claim | Supplemental claim should be allowed given untimely but relevant facts. | Supplemental claim untimely and prejudicial; not properly raised in time. | District court did not err in denying leave to supplement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (establishes property interest analysis for public employment)
- Kelleher v. Flawn, 761 F.2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1985) (limits on entitlement to specific duties absent statute or contract)
- DePree v. Saunders, 588 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2009) (private rights to employment duties require state-law basis)
- Montgomery County Hosp. Dist. v. Brown, 965 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1998) (Texas presumption of at-will employment unless contract or policy alters it)
- Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1995) (absence of state/contract basis means no protected property interest)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework for public officials)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (requirements to plead plausible facts, not mere conclusory statements)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausibility, not just legal conclusions)