Pucci v. Nineteenth District Court, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25588

Background

Pucci was employed at the Nineteenth District Court in Dearborn, Michigan, rising from court typist to deputy court administrator before her 2006 termination.
Somers, elected chief district judge in 2006, opposed Pucci's planned promotion and sought changes to the court's personnel structure.
Pucci complained to supervisors and state authorities about Somers's use of religious language from the bench during 2004–2005.
In 2005–2006 the court reorganized; Pucci was not advanced to court administrator due to anti-nepotism concerns tied to her relationship with Judge Hultgren.
Somers announced in October 2006 that Pucci would be terminated effective January 1, 2007, eliminating the deputy administrator position.
Pucci filed § 1983 and state-law claims alleging retaliation for protected speech, due process, and other civil-rights flaws; the district court partially denied summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Nineteenth District Court and Somers are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.	Pucci contends the district court is not an arm of the state and thus not immune.	Somers contends the court and official-capacity actions are immune as state actors.	Yes; sovereign immunity attaches to the district court and Somers in official capacity, warranting dismissal of federal claims.
Whether Pucci had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment.	Pucci asserts Michigan law created an implied or established expectation of job security.	Somers contends she was at-will, lacking a property interest under Michigan law.	There is a genuine issue of material fact; Pucci may have had a protected property interest, permitting due-process analysis.
Whether Pucci's First Amendment retaliation claim against Somers is cognizable and properly analyzed under qualified immunity.	Pucci argues her complaints about Somers's religious conduct were protected public-speech activity.	Somers contends the speech was within duties and not protected, and qualified immunity should apply.	Pucci's retaliation claim is viable; Somers is not entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity.
Whether Somers, in his official capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment and due-process claims.	Pucci asserts clearly established rights were violated without due process or protection for speech.	Somers argues lack of clearly established rights at the time.	Somers is not entitled to qualified immunity on the personal-capacity First Amendment claim; sovereign immunity applies to official-capacity claims.

Key Cases Cited

Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2005) (multifactor arm-of-the-state analysis for sovereign immunity)
S.J. v. Hamilton County, 374 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc factors for state-entity immunity)
Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (S. Ct. 1994) (sovereign-immunity framework and state dignity considerations)
Lowe v. Hamilton Cnty. Dep't of Job & Family Servs., 610 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2010) (financial liability is not sole determinative of arm-of-state status)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (S. Ct. 1968) (balance speech/free-public-service interests when evaluating public employee speech)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (S. Ct. 1983) (public employee speech involves matters of public concern when acting as a citizen)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (S. Ct. 2006) (speech as part of official duties is not protected)
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (S. Ct. 1985) (pre-termination due process rights for protected property interests)
Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2006) (framework for procedural due process and property interests)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (S. Ct. 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis for constitutional rights)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (S. Ct. 2009) (revised approach to qualified-immunity sequencing)