Lee v. Driscoll, No. 16-3139 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, alleging claims related to the Township Board's decision to install a culvert and to refund leftover grant money to FEMA without holding public meetings. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity as to the First Amendment retaliation claim where the district court concluded that the facts viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs established that the individual defendants retaliated against plaintiffs for exercising their First Amendment rights; affirmed the denial of qualified immunity as to the First Amendment association claim where the district court concluded that the individual defendants violated Plaintiff Mary Lee's right to freedom of association by excluding her from Township Board meetings despite her elected role as Township Board Clerk; and reversed the denial of qualified immunity as to the First Amendment right to petition claim where there was no First Amendment right to participate in a non-public government meeting as a member of the public. In regard to the cross-appeal, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the free speech claim.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in denying individual defendants' motion for summary judment based on qualified immunity on plaintiffs' claim they retaliated against plaintiffs for exercising their First Amendment right to criticize township board decisions and return FEMA funds as defendants did not argue to the district court that persons of ordinary firmness would continued to exercise their rights, and the court would not consider their ordinary firmness argument for the first time on appeal;restrictions on an elected official's ability to perform her duties violates her right to freedom of association, and the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity to the individual defendants on plaintiff Mary Lee's claim she was excluded from board meetings despite her position as board clerk; there is no First Amendment right to participate in a non-public meeting as a member of the public, and the district court erred in denying the individual defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim defendants violated their right to petition; only one issue in plaintiffs' cross-appeal is inextricably intertwined with an issue raised in the individual defendants' appeal and therefore appealable - whether the plaintiffs had a clearly established right under the First Amendment free-speech clause to participate in non-public Township Board meetings; as the court has already concluded that there is no such right, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed. Judge Colloton, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [ September 06, 2017
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.