The city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, recently took an aggressive stance in a state public records case, and it wound up getting itself hauled into federal court.

A former Albuquerque police officer named Jeremy Dear sought records related to his firing from the city under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act.

Albuquerque refused to produce the records, arguing that the requested records constituted attorney work product.

Not satisfied with the city’s response, Dear filed a lawsuit in New Mexico State Court, seeking to enforce the provisions of the Public Records Act.

In response, Albuquerque filed a counterclaim alleging malicious abuse of process. The city also sought discovery from Dear.

At that point, Dear went to federal court and filed a lawsuit against the city, the city’s chief administrative officer and the mayor.

Dear alleged the city and its agents filed the counterclaim in retaliation for Dear seeking the records and exercising his First Amendment right to petition the government.

The federal trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that Dear failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, however, reversed that finding.

In reversing, the appellate court disagreed with several basic findings by the trial court.

The trial court found that Dear failed to allege that in filing the lawsuit, the defendants acted under of color of state law. But the appellate court found that the city administrator directed the city's attorneys to file the countersuit.

It also found the mayor acted under color of state law by failing to properly supervise the administrator.

As to the city, the appellate court found that Albuquerque could only act under color of state law.

The trial court also found that Dear failed to properly allege a retaliatory action by Albuquerque because the retaliation took the form of a civil counterclaim rather than a criminal proceeding.

The appellate court noted that precedent existed to support the claim that a civil action constituted retaliation even if an ordinary citizen could file such a claim. The trial court erred when it found that the retaliation needed to be an act that only a governmental entity could initiate.

The appellate court noted why it needed to intervene here, “[i]f exercising this procedural option inoculated officials from liability for their actions, they might ‘feel free to wield the powers of their office as weapons against those who question their decisions.’ ”

In other words, if state actors want to be litigation bullies, they need to know that they are flirting with federal liability. Just ask the folks in Albuquerque.

Jack Greiner is a partner at the Graydon law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Aggressive litigation might trigger 1983 liability