Tschida v. Motl
250 F. Supp. 3d 709
D. Mont.2017Background
- Tschida, a Montana state representative, filed an ethics complaint in Sept. 2016 against the Governor and a state official. The Montana ethics statute (Mont. Code Ann. § 2-2-136(4)) required complainant confidentiality until a probable-cause decision.
- Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl told Tschida not to disclose the complaint and, on a radio interview, criticized Tschida and suggested possible consequences (including referring to official misconduct).
- Tschida emailed his complaint to legislators on November 2, 2016; Motl publicly confirmed the complaint’s filing and warned about confidentiality. Motl later declared he would not prosecute or act on an ethics complaint against Tschida and dismissed Tschida’s complaint as frivolous, lifting confidentiality.
- Tschida sued, asserting: (1) a facial/as-applied First Amendment challenge to the confidentiality statute (addressed elsewhere), and (2) retaliation claims under the U.S. and Montana Constitutions and a Speech or Debate claim — seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the latter three claims.
- Motl moved to dismiss the retaliation and Speech or Debate claims and all damages claims based on qualified immunity (federal) and Montana statutory immunity; the court addressed whether Tschida had a "clearly established" right such that qualified immunity would not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tschida had a clearly established First Amendment right to publicly disclose that he filed an ethics complaint before a probable-cause determination | Tschida: officials may not threaten prosecution or chill speech about filing complaints; he had a right to publicize his complaint and criticize officials | Motl: the confidentiality statute and prior practice allowed reliance on the statute; Motl reasonably believed disclosure prohibition was constitutional and his statements were within his authority | Held: No. The right was not clearly established; qualified immunity applies to Motl |
| Whether Motl exceeded the statute’s scope (so immunity unavailable) by threatening criminal consequences or otherwise acting egregiously | Tschida: Motl’s threats went beyond the statute’s administrative penalties and thus were unreasonable and not protected by reliance on statute | Motl: His comments were responses permitted by statute (confirming filing, identifying target, describing status); mentioning possible official misconduct was a reasonable characterization | Held: Motl’s statements fell within a reasonable interpretation of statutory scope; not an egregious overreach that defeats immunity |
| Whether Montana statutory immunity shields Motl from state-law claims and damages | Tschida sought compensatory/punitive damages under state law | Motl invoked Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-103 and related immunity doctrines | Held: Court dismissed state-law claims and damages (defendant entitled to immunity as to these claims) |
| Whether damages are available against Motl in his official capacity under § 1983 | Tschida sought monetary relief | Motl: official-capacity damages are not available | Held: Court concluded qualified immunity bars damages; claims for damages dismissed (second, third, and fourth claims dismissed with prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes modern qualified immunity standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity protects reasonable but mistaken judgments; requirement that precedent place the question beyond debate)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may address either prong of qualified immunity first)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (defines when a right is clearly established)
- Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir.) (officials relying on an enacted statute ordinarily entitled to immunity unless enforcement is egregious)
- O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.) (qualified immunity dismissal standard at Rule 12(b)(6) stage)
- Krainski v. Nevada Bd. of Regents, 616 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.) (two-prong inquiry for qualified immunity)
- LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.) (defining the appropriate specificity for the right at issue)
- Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (addresses First Amendment limits on punishing third-party publication of confidential judicial-commission proceedings)
- Stilp v. Contino, 613 F.3d 405 (3d Cir.) (confidentiality statute criminalizing disclosure of one’s own ethics complaint violated First Amendment)
- Kamasinski v. Judicial Review Council, 44 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.) (upheld confidentiality pre-probable-cause in judicial misconduct context)
- Tarabochia v. Adkins, 766 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.) (officials cannot rely on statutory authority when their conduct exceeds what the statute authorizes)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)