Upshaw v. Erath County et al

Filing 36

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Dismiss. If Plaintiffs wish to amend the dismissed claims, they must seek leave to file an amended complaint by 7/1/2019. If a motion for leave to file, with the proposed amended complaint attached, is not filed by this date, these claims will be dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Karen Gren Scholer on 6/3/2019) (ykp)

3d 721, 752-53 (N.D. Tex. 2019) (quoting Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 702 (1976)). Accordingly,
Plaintiffs cannot base their substantive due process claim on the alleged defamation alone.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that their termination implicates a liberty
interest under a stigma-plus test. See id. at 753 (citing Paul, 424 U.S. at 711 ). As explained above,
the allegations in the Complaint do not suggest that Plaintiffs were branded with a badge of infamy
or public scorn. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' Motion and dismisses the portions of
Count I that are based on the alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights.
(4) Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity "protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar
as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known."' Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,231 (2009) (quoting
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). The doctrine of qualified immunity balances
two interests: "the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power
irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they
perform their duties reasonably." Id. Qualified immunity shields "all but the plainly incompetent or
those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335,341 (1986).
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages
liability when their actions could reasonably have been believed to be legal. Morgan v. Swanson,
659 F.3d 359, 370 (5th Cir. 2011). When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the
plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the inapplicability of that defense. Cantrell v. City of
Murphy, 666 F.3d 911, 918 (5th Cir. 2012). To meet this burden, the plaintiff must show "(1) that
the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly

11