United States Sixth Circuit

In plaintiffs' suit against a city, a police sergeant and various city officials under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged violations of First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, district court's denial of the sergeant's motion for qualified immunity from the plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's request for help from a city councilman regarding difficulties that he was having operating his business constitutes a "petition" for the purposes of the First Amendment's Petition Clause, as there is no distinction between oral and written grievance when what was requested orally would constitute a petition if reduced to writing; 2) plaintiffs produced evidence sufficient, if true, to support a claim of retaliation for exercising their right to petition; and 3) the sergeant is not entitled to qualified immunity as officers of reasonable competence in the sergeant's shoes would have known that her actions, if as alleged, were unlawful retaliation.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/15/2009
• Decided 09/15/2010
• Published 09/15/2010

Judges

• GIBBONS

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Timothy Taylor, Joni K. Roberts