Lowry v. City of LaMarque, Texas
3:22-cv-00112
S.D. Tex.Jan 25, 2024Background
- Joseph Lowry, a business owner and political activist in La Marque, Texas, publicly criticized city officials on social media.
- Lowry alleges the city officials retaliated against him by removing his comments, banning him from the city's Facebook page, organizing protests against him, and making defamatory statements at city council meetings.
- He claims these actions forced him to limit his protected speech due to fear of retaliation.
- Lowry filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and brought defamation claims against two individual defendants.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, attaching evidence outside the pleadings, which the court declined to consider at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consideration of Evidence | Court shouldn't review outside documents at this phase | Evidence disproves Lowry's factual claims | Court refused to consider defendants' attached exhibits |
| First Amendment Retaliation (Verbal) | Verbal epithets (e.g., 'domestic terrorist') amount to actionable retaliation | Mere name-calling/non-tangible actions aren't First Amendment violations | Verbal remarks alone not actionable under First Amendment |
| First Amendment Retaliation (Non-Verbal) | Non-verbal conduct (bans, protests, threats) chilled his speech | No tangible injury from actions alleged | Non-verbal conduct sufficiently alleged to survive dismissal |
| Defamation Claims under TTCA | Defendants' defamatory statements not protected by employment scope | Defamatory comments were within job duties, so claims barred by TTCA | Defamation claims dismissed as within scope of employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility of claims)
- Colson v. Grohman, 174 F.3d 498 (First Amendment retaliation standard)
- Keenan v. Tejada, 290 F.3d 252 (requirements for proving curtailment of First Amendment activity)
- Goodman v. Harris County, 571 F.3d 388 (Section 1983 capacity claims)
- Garza v. Harrison, 574 S.W.3d 389 (scope of employment under Texas Tort Claims Act)