A press release sent out by the City of Prescott regarding the lawsuit of Kay Anne Riley vs. the City of Prescott reads as follows:

"In an order filed this morning in U.S. District Court, Judge James Teilborg ruled to dismiss five of seven claims against all three principal defendants -- former City Manager Steve Norwood, Mayor Kuykendall and the City of Prescott. Only a portion of the first claim has also been dismissed. At this time, a portion of two claims are all that remain, pending further argument and proceedings in the case.

"The next step may be an attempt by the plaintiff to amend some of the dismissed counts. However the ruling provides that facts will be required to justify any such amendment(s). However at this time the sole remaining portions of the complaint if not amended would proceed to a scheduling conference and in preparation for that conference, the attorneys would prepare a joint case management report to schedule the other discovery matters, motions, and a trial date on the remaining portion of the claims."

At the very beginning of Judge Teilborg's ruling, he explains, "In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the facts alleged in a complaint in the light most favorable to the drafter of the complaint, and the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true."

The City of Prescott argued that Riley's complaint should be dismissed because the claims are "unsupported by fact or law" and Defendants Mayor Kuykendall and Former City Manager Norwood are entitled to qualified immunity.

But, Judge Teilborg points out, "To escape qualified immunity at the pleadings stage, a plaintiff need only plead “facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd"

However, the Court found that, "taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Mayor Kuykendall is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Plaintiff’s constitutional right to engage in free speech was clearly established when she was terminated from YHS. Further, assuming, as the Court must on a motion to dismiss, that Mayor Kuykendall threatened to cancel the City’s contract with YHS if it did not fire Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s exercise of her free speech rights, these alleged facts are enough to state a claim that Mayor Kuykendall violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right to engage in free speech free of governmental interference."

At the same time, the Court warned, "throughout her responses in opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiff frequently refers to conclusory allegations as “facts.” In amending her Complaint, Plaintiff is cautioned that such conclusory allegations are not facts and that she must plead actual facts that raise her right to relief above the speculative level."

Riley has 30 days to file an amended complaint if she chooses to do so.

Read Judge Teilborg's Ruling

Read Original Complaint