John Little v. Texas Attorney General, et a
655 F. App'x 1027
5th Cir.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiffs John and Wendy Little sued three Texas state employees in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, challenging the suspension/nonrenewal of John Little’s master electrician license for unpaid child support and certain Texas Family Code provisions.
- John fell into arrears on court-ordered child support beginning March 13, 2013; his license expired June 24, 2014 after notice from the Texas OAG that the OAG was requesting nonrenewal and advising him to contact the OAG.
- The Littles alleged violations of procedural due process, equal protection, First Amendment retaliation, and a § 1985(3) conspiracy, and also asserted facial/as-applied challenges to Tex. Fam. Code §§ 232.0135, 157.263, and 154.068.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity among other defenses.
- The district court dismissed the complaint on qualified immunity and for failure to state a plausible constitutional claim as to the challenged Family Code provisions; it entered a Rule 54(b) judgment.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, finding the Littles’ allegations conclusory/speculative and insufficient to overcome qualified immunity or to plausibly show the statutes were unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for actions leading to license nonrenewal | Littles: defendants violated constitutional rights (due process, equal protection, retaliation) by suspending/nonrenewing license | Defendants: acted consistent with statutory authority; plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory and fail to plead specific unconstitutional acts | Held: Qualified immunity affirmed; plaintiffs failed to plead specific, plausible constitutional violations |
| Whether the complaint states a procedural due process violation | Littles: license suspension/nonrenewal denied adequate process | Defendants: no sufficient factual allegations showing process violation attributable to them | Held: Dismissed for failure to state a plausible due process claim |
| Whether the complaint states an equal protection / § 1985 conspiracy claim | Littles: defendants discriminated/conspired in enforcement of statutes | Defendants: no facts showing discriminatory intent or conspiracy; conduct lawful under statute | Held: Dismissed for failure to plead plausible equal protection or § 1985 conspiracy claims |
| Whether Tex. Fam. Code §§ 232.0135, 157.263, 154.068 are unconstitutional | Littles: statutes are unconstitutional as applied/challenged | Defendants: plaintiffs offer no basis beyond alleging defendants’ conduct; statutes applied properly | Held: Statutory constitutional challenges dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (qualified immunity protects officials whose actions could reasonably be thought consistent with law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plaintiff must plead that each government-official defendant, through the official’s own actions, violated the Constitution)
- Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 587 F.3d 314 (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review; plausibility standard)
- Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427 (district court need not permit discovery absent sufficient factual specificity against officials)