## Facts

- Joseph W. Little, a Florida Bar member and University of Florida law professor, represented an environmental group pro bono in Florida state-court litigation challenging a state appropriation involving land owned by the City of North Miami.
- The City intervened in one suit and was represented by private counsel.
- On October 11, 1983, the North Miami City Council adopted a censure resolution stating that Little had made “improper use of public funds” to represent private parties in litigation against the State and against the City’s interests.
- The resolution was read aloud at a public meeting without notice to Little and without verification of its factual assertions.
- The City circulated copies of the resolution to numerous recipients, including university leadership, state higher-education officials, legislators, and the state auditor general.
- Little alleged the resolution and its dissemination prompted governmental investigations and caused reputational harm, harm to employment relations, and emotional distress.
- Little sued the City and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; Little appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal censure resolution constitutes action under color of state law sufficient to support a § 1983 claim alleging infringement of First Amendment rights.
2. Whether allegations that the City publicly and widely disseminated an official, stigmatizing accusation of professional misconduct—without notice or an opportunity to respond—state a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on deprivation of a liberty interest.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal as to the First Amendment and procedural due process claims and remanded.
- The court held that an official city council resolution is municipal action under color of state law for § 1983 purposes.
- Accepting the pleaded facts as true and drawing inferences for the plaintiff, the court concluded the complaint plausibly alleged unconstitutional punishment or retaliation for protected expressive activity (representation in litigation).
- The court concluded the complaint plausibly alleged a liberty-interest deprivation based on official, stigmatizing accusations and their dissemination with asserted adverse effects on professional standing and employment relationships, without procedural protections.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal governing-body acts taken in an official capacity, including formal resolutions, are actions under color of state law and can support § 1983 liability when constitutional rights are plausibly alleged to have been violated.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, courts must accept well-pleaded facts as true and construe them in the plaintiff’s favor.
- A First Amendment claim may be stated where governmental action plausibly punishes or retaliates against a person for protected expressive or associational activity, including certain litigation-related advocacy.
- For procedural due process, reputational harm alone is generally insufficient; a plaintiff must plausibly allege stigma plus a tangible alteration or material impairment of status or employment-related interests caused by official governmental action.
- Official, unverified, allegedly false accusations of serious misconduct publicly issued and disseminated by a governmental body, with alleged adverse employment or professional consequences, can require notice and an opportunity to respond.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Little’s allegations regarding a city council’s censure resolution and its dissemination were sufficient to plead § 1983 claims for First Amendment infringement and for deprivation of a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest without procedural due process, requiring reversal of the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.


Little v. City of North Miami, 805 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1986)