Avant v. Doke

── Avant v. Doke ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-7086 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 5, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court GARY A. AVANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 24-7086 (D.C. No. 6:20-CV-00067-RAW) KEN DOKE, individually and in his (E.D. Okla.) official capacity as a County Commissioner for Muskogee County, Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ After Gary Avant was terminated from his position with Muskogee County, Oklahoma, he sued County Commissioner Ken Doke under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment violations. Two interlocutory appeals followed. 1 On remand, the district court granted summary * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 See Avant v. Doke (Avant I), No. 21-7031, 2022 WL 2255699 (10th Cir. June 23, 2022) (unpublished); Avant v. Doke (Avant II), 104 F.4th 203 (10th Cir. 2024).  Appellate Case: 24-7086 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 2 judgment to Commissioner Doke. Mr. Avant now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I This appeal has a lengthy and complex procedural background. But the facts are well known to the parties and this court. Accordingly, we begin by recounting only the facts necessary to resolve the appeal before us. 2 A Mr. Avant was a truck driver employed by Muskogee County. Ken Doke, the elected County Commissioner, had authority over Mr. Avant’s employment. In 2018, Commissioner Doke ran for reelection. Mr. Avant’s wife and son publicly supported Commissioner Doke’s opponent. Commissioner Doke heard that Mr. Avant had allegedly made negative statements about a county project and a county employee, and the commissioner ultimately fired Mr. Avant. Mr. Avant then filed a lawsuit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Commissioner Doke in his individual and official capacities. 3 2We derive the facts from the motions underlying the appeal, the district court’s prior orders, and this court’s prior descriptions. 3 The proceedings sometimes implicate Commissioner Doke in his official capacity, sometimes his individual capacity, and sometimes both. For example, both Avant I and Avant II center on qualified immunity, which “only insulates defendants sued under § 1983 in their individual capacities.” Hulen v. Yates, 322 F.3d 1229, 1236 n.2 (10th Cir. 2003) (per 2  Appellate Case: 24-7086 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 3 Mr. Avant claimed Commissioner Doke retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to political association. 4 Commissioner Doke moved for summary judgment, asserting the