Bevill v. Fletcher
26 F.4th 270 (5th Cir. 2022)
Holding
A police captain's First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983 survived a motion to dismiss where the complaint plausibly alleged that a judge, district attorney, and sheriff conspired to have him fired in retaliation for signing an affidavit critical of their professional relationships.
What This Case Is About
Terry Bevill, a captain with the Quitman Police Department in Wood County, Texas, signed an affidavit supporting a venue transfer in a criminal case. The affidavit stated that the defendant could not receive a fair trial in Wood County because of the close personal relationships among the local judge, district attorney, and sheriff. After learning about the affidavit, these three officials allegedly pressured the city to fire Bevill. He sued under § 1983, claiming the officials conspired to violate his First Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that the claim survived a motion to dismiss.
The Facts
In April 2017, the Kilgore News Herald published an article in which newly elected Judge Jeff Fletcher noted his excitement about working with Wood County Sheriff Tom Castloo and District Attorney James Wheeler, emphasizing “the importance of staying in line and working in unison.”
Two months later, Bevill—then captain of the Quitman Police Department—signed an affidavit supporting a venue transfer for the criminal trial of a former Wood County Jail Administrator. The affidavit, filed at the request of the defendant’s lawyer, stated that the defendant would not receive a fair trial in Wood County because of the close personal relationships among Fletcher, Castloo, and Wheeler. Bevill signed the affidavit as a private citizen, not in his official QPD capacity, and did not discuss it with anyone at QPD beforehand.
After learning about the affidavit, Fletcher, Castloo, and Wheeler approached Quitman Mayor David Dobbs to discuss Bevill’s continued employment. During that meeting, the three officials threatened to withhold resources from Quitman and support for QPD if Bevill was not fired. Mayor Dobbs then pressured QPD Police Chief Kelly Cole to fire Bevill. Chief Cole ultimately terminated Bevill.
Bevill filed suit under § 1983, alleging that Fletcher, Castloo, and Wheeler conspired to retaliate against him for exercising his First Amendment right to speak on a matter of public concern.
What the Court Decided
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
On the First Amendment claim, the court applied the Pickering-Connick framework for public-employee speech. The threshold question was whether Bevill spoke on a matter of “public concern.” The court found he clearly did—the fairness of the local criminal justice system and the relationships among its key actors are quintessential matters of public interest.
On the conspiracy claim, the court found that Bevill plausibly alleged an agreement among the three defendants. The complaint alleged specific facts: the defendants met together with the mayor, collectively threatened to withhold resources, and the firing followed directly. This was enough to satisfy Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly’s plausibility pleading standard.
On qualified immunity, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The right to be free from retaliation for speech on matters of public concern was clearly established, and the complaint alleged facts showing the defendants knew they were retaliating against Bevill for his speech.
The court also addressed Nieves v. Bartlett, noting that the probable-cause bar to retaliatory arrest claims does not apply to retaliatory employment termination—a different category of retaliation.
Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case
Public employees can speak on matters of public concern. When a government employee speaks as a citizen on issues of public interest—like the integrity of the local justice system—that speech is protected by the First Amendment. Retaliation for such speech is actionable under § 1983.
Conspiracy claims can reach across agencies. Bevill’s case involved three officials from different branches of county government (judicial, prosecutorial, and law enforcement) allegedly conspiring together. A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires showing an agreement to violate constitutional rights—and circumstantial evidence like a joint meeting, threats, and subsequent action can establish that agreement.
Resource threats are a form of pressure. The defendants did not directly fire Bevill—they pressured the city to do it by threatening to withhold resources. Courts recognize that this kind of indirect retaliation is still actionable.
Affidavits and testimony are protected. Signing an affidavit in a legal proceeding is a form of speech and participation in the judicial process that receives First Amendment protection.
Key Takeaway
When government officials conspire to have a public employee fired for speaking out on a matter of public concern—like the integrity of the local justice system—that conspiracy violates the First Amendment and is actionable under § 1983. Qualified immunity does not protect officials who retaliate against clearly protected speech, and circumstantial evidence of coordinated action can establish the required conspiracy agreement.