Greg Porter v. Guadalupe Valdez, 424 F. App'x 382

Background

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging denial of a Rule 12(c) motion in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Sheriff Valdez and Executive Chief Deputy Flores.
Plaintiffs, officers in the sheriff’s department, alleged First Amendment retaliation, and due process and equal protection violations in both individual and official capacities.
Plaintiffs publicly supported the Sheriff’s opponent in the 2008 election; several plaintiffs held prominent department/organizational positions and campaigned for the opponent.
Following the election, the Sheriff and Flores allegedly reassigned the plaintiffs to less prestigious or different shifts and duties, within 40 days of the election.
Plaintiffs claimed the transfers were retaliatory for their political activities; they sought relief against defendants in their individual and official capacities.
The district court granted qualified immunity to Deputy Evans on his retaliation claim and denied the remainder of the motion; the court did not resolve all official-capacity claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of qualified immunity for individual-capacity claims is appealable	Plaintiffs argue the appeal covers retaliation and due-process claims against individuals.	Defendants contend only the qualified-immunity denial for individual-capacity claims is appealable, not official-capacity claims.	Jurisdiction limited to the individual-capacity qualified-immunity denial; official-capacity claims on appeal are not reviewable.
Whether plaintiffs pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim for transfers	Plaintiffs contend transfers were adverse actions tied to protected political speech.	Defendants argue the pleadings fail to show a plausible retaliation claim or clearly established law.	Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded retaliation; transfers occurred after campaign activity, with plausible causal link.
Whether the retaliation claim is barred by qualified immunity under clearly established law	Plaintiffs assert the law clearly established that such transfers could be retaliatory.	Defendants assert lack of clearly established law and insufficient facts.	Plaintiffs pleaded facts plausibly showing a violation; defendants' actions were not objectively reasonable under clearly established law.
Whether equal protection claim is viable or merely a restatement of the First Amendment claim	Plaintiffs maintain an equal-protection claim based on disparate treatment for protected speech.	Defendants argue the equal-protection claim is a restatement of the retaliation claim and thus lacks independent basis.	Equal-protection claim is dismissed as duplicative of the First Amendment retaliation claim; not independently viable.
Whether plaintiffs stated a due-process claim grounded in property interests in continued employment	Plaintiffs contend they had a property interest in continued employment under Texas/local law and Civil Service protections.	Defendants contend failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of property interest defeat the claim.	There is at least a potential property interest under state law; exhaustion issue raised too late on appeal to resolve.

Key Cases Cited

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (final decision on qualified immunity when appealable under § 1291)
Good v. Curtis, 601 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2010) (supports appellate review of qualified-immunity denials in some interlocutory contexts)
Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 1999) (limits on reviewing Rule 12(c) interlocutory denials related to pleading sufficiency)
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (neutral posture in evaluating pleadings and related standards)