Heaney v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 23 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | Cons w/ 16-30189,No. 15-31088,15-31088 |
| Parties | Tom HEANEY, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Christopher L. ROBERTS; Parish of Jefferson, Defendants–Appellants. Tom Heaney, Plaintiff–Appellant–Cross–Appellee, v. Christopher L. Roberts, Defendant–Appellee, Ronald Black, Defendant–Appellee–Cross–Appellant, City of Gretna, Defendant–Cross Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
846 F.3d 795
Tom HEANEY, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Christopher L. ROBERTS; Parish of Jefferson, Defendants–Appellants.
Tom Heaney, Plaintiff–Appellant–Cross–Appellee,
v.
Christopher L. Roberts, Defendant–Appellee,
Ronald Black, Defendant–Appellee–Cross–Appellant,
City of Gretna, Defendant–Cross Appellant.
No. 15-31088
Cons w/ 16-30189
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 23, 2017
Brett John Prendergast, Esq., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Craig Robert Watson, Blue Williams, L.L.P., Metairie, LA, for Defendants–Appellants.
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge:
This case involves consolidated appeals by multiple parties. Plaintiff Tom Heaney was silenced and then ejected at a city council meeting in Gretna, Louisiana. He alleged that the presiding official at the meeting, Defendant Christopher Roberts, violated his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution as well as under the Louisiana state constitution. Heaney also argued that Defendant Ronald Black, the Gretna police officer who removed him from the meeting, violated those same constitutional rights as well as state tort law. Finally, Heaney alleged that the Parish of Jefferson ("Jefferson Parish") and the City of Gretna were vicariously liable as the employers of Roberts and Black. The district court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Roberts is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim, we DISMISS his interlocutory appeal. We also DISMISS Black's cross-appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. We AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the other claims.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
On September 18, 2013, Tom Heaney attended a regularly scheduled Jefferson Parish council meeting in Gretna, Louisiana. In accordance with council rules, Heaney registered to speak during the time allowed for public comment. The rules allowed each registered speaker five minutes to address the council. Heaney wished to speak about the legality of council members accepting campaign contributions from contractors who had applied for and received no-bid contracts from the council. Councilman Christopher Roberts was presiding as chair of the meeting.
When Heaney had been speaking for about three minutes, he was interrupted by Roberts, who asked if he would yield the floor to the Parish Attorney, Ms. Foshee. Heaney believed that he would receive the balance of his time after Ms. Foshee finished speaking given that a prior speaker had been given the balance of her time after yielding. Ms. Foshee spoke for several minutes, expressing her opinion that the council's actions were legal. After she finished speaking, Heaney asked Roberts, "May I have my time back?" and Roberts responded, "Yes, how much time do we have?" Heaney then expressed his wish to challenge the Parish Attorney's opinion. At that point, he was interrupted again by Roberts:
Roberts: Let me, we've had this conversation before, ok?
Heaney: Are you trying to stop me from speaking?
Roberts: Well you yielded and I do have the floor ... so ... I'm not going to turn this into a circus, ok? If you don't believe what Ms. Foshee's comments were—
Heaney: I—
Roberts: Let me finish. Last I checked, Ms. Foshee had a law degree hanging on the wall in her office. If you're challenging whether or not what she's saying to be accurate or not, you can go right to the elevator downstairs. The Clerk of Court's office is there, and you're welcome to file suit. This is not the forum for you to challenge the opinion of the parish attorney, ok?
Heaney: Now if I can be able to speak—
Roberts: No, let me finish. Let me finish. Once again, I'm going to ask you, are you an attorney?
Heaney: I don't have to be an attorney to read and comprehend a decision—
Roberts: But I'm not going to sit here and have you berate the parish attorney.
Heaney: I have a decision. I have a decision by HUD that contradicts what Ms. Foshee says—
Roberts: Sir, ok. Your time's up and I'm going to ask that you be removed because you're being hostile so if you would please exit.
Heaney: I'm not being hostile.
Roberts: If you've got a problem with that, you can go downstairs.... This is the third time that you've tried to take issue with something
....
Heaney: You're trying to stop me from presenting facts that contradict Ms. Foshee. You're taking my time, and you're violating parish ordinance.
Roberts: If you'd please remove the gentleman.
Ronald Black, a police officer with the City of Gretna, responded to Roberts's request to remove Heaney from the chambers. Black approached the podium where Heaney was standing and indicated that he needed to move. Heaney stopped to hand documents to another person as he walked away up the aisle, intending to sit down for the rest of the meeting. He alleges that Black "continued to force plaintiff from the Council chambers" and that Black shoved him forward, causing him to fall to the floor. After getting up, Heaney alleges that Black "seized [him] by the arms and forcibly ejected him from the chambers" into an elevator and down to the first floor. While Heaney awaited an ambulance that had been called for him, Black consulted with his supervisor about whether or not Heaney should be arrested.
B. Procedural Background
Heaney filed a complaint on September 12, 2014. He alleged that Roberts and Black violated his First and Fourth
Amendment rights and sought damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, as well as punitive damages. In addition, Heaney asserted that both Roberts and Black violated his right to free expression under Article I, Section 7 of the Louisiana constitution and that Black was liable in tort for false arrest, battery, and negligence under Louisiana law. Heaney also alleged that Jefferson Parish and the City of Gretna should be vicariously liable as the employers of Roberts and Black, respectively.
Black and the City of Gretna, as well as Roberts and Jefferson Parish, filed motions for summary judgment on July 28, 2015. On December 2, 2015, the district court granted in part and denied in part both motions. Specifically, the court denied Roberts's motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment and state constitutional claims. Because the state constitutional claim remains pending, Jefferson Parish remains in the lawsuit as Roberts's employer on that claim. The court also denied Black's motion for summary judgment on the state law battery and negligence claims. These tort claims remain pending against the City of Gretna on a theory of respondeat superior.1 The court granted summary judgment on the free speech claims as to Black, the Fourth Amendment claims as to Black and Roberts, the punitive damages claim, and the false arrest claim.
Roberts filed a notice of interlocutory appeal on December 21, 2015. On February 29, 2016, the district court entered a final judgment in accordance with its order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), finding no just reason for delay. Heaney appealed on March 4, 2016. Black appealed the denial of summary judgment on March 7, 2016. Roberts filed another notice of appeal on March 14, 2016.
II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
We have jurisdiction over final decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. While not a final decision, "the denial of a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is a collateral order capable of immediate review." Kinney v. Weaver , 367 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We have explained that when a "district court denies an official's motion for summary judgment predicated upon qualified immunity, the district court can be thought of as making two distinct determinations, even if only implicitly." Id. The court is first deciding that "a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law." Id. "Second, the court decides that a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant(s) did, in fact, engage in such conduct." Id. We do not have jurisdiction to review the second type of determination. Id. Instead, "we review the complaint and record to determine whether, assuming that all of [the plaintiff's] factual assertions are true, those facts are materially sufficient to establish that defendants acted in an objectively unreasonable manner." Wagner v. Bay City , 227 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2000). "Within this limited appellate jurisdiction, ‘[t]his court reviews a district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit de novo.’ " Good v. Curtis , 601 F.3d 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Collier v. Montgomery , 569 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 2009) ).
III. DISCUSSION
"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Reichle v. Howards , 566 U.S. 658, 132 S.Ct. 2088,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jamison v. McClendon
...Brooks Whitman, Emphasizing the Constitutional in Constitutional Torts , 72 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 661, 678 (1997).167 Heaney v. Roberts , 846 F.3d 795, 801 (5th Cir. 2017) (citations and brackets omitted).168 See Docket No. 62.169 United States v. Estrada , 459 F.3d 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2006) (ci......
-
Singleton v. Cannizzaro
...1256 (5th Cir. 1999) ).70 See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 345–48, 129 S.Ct. 855, 172 L.Ed.2d 706 (2009).71 Heaney v. Roberts, 846 F.3d 795, 801 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012) ).72 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.......
-
Harris Cnty. v. Coats
...motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." Heaney v. Roberts , 846 F.3d 795, 803 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Smith v. Wade , 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983) ). The purpose of such damages is to puni......
-
Naef v. Cnty. of New Hanover
... ... concerning his forcible removal from the October 6, 2021 ... meeting. See Heaney v. Roberts, 846 F.3d 795, 804-05 ... (5th Cir. 2017); Warden v. Walkup, No. CV-13-00283, ... 2020 WL 1694752, at *4-5 (D. Ariz. Apr ... ...
-
Prisoners' Rights
...14th Amendment violation because detention was brief, no physical abuse, and arrestee suffered no treatable injuries); Heaney v. Roberts, 846 F.3d 795, 803 (5th Cir. 2017) (punitive damages improper where councilman’s alleged discrimination against citizen was having them removed from meeti......