holding that an allegation that Township officials had threatened to revoke a resident’s special- use permit was sufficient to show an adverse action at the pleading stage
How later courts described this case
- holding that an allegation that Township officials had threatened to revoke a resident’s special- use permit was sufficient to show an adverse action at the pleading stage
- holding that plaintiff alleged facts plausibly suggesting that the “adverse actions were motivated, at least in part, by her protected conduct,” sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.
- finding that defendant’s statements that there was a neighborhood petition against plaintiff and that plaintiff violated township ordinances did not constitute adverse action
- noting that a “ ‘legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’ need not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss” (quoting Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RYAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion, precisely for the reasons stated by District Judge Robert Holmes Bell in his solidly reasoned and well-written opinion holding that the plaintiff has not alleged an actionable claim of a violation of her constitutional rights.
I would affirm the district court’s judgment.