Heining v. City of Anniston

• Decision Date: 26 September 2017
• Docket Number: Case No.: 1:15-CV-1363-VEH
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
• Parties: RONALD DALE HEINING and TYLER WADE HEINING, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ANNISTON, ALABAMA; DON HOYT, individually and in his official capacity; and DARYL ABERNATHY, individually and in his official capacity; Defendants.

RONALD DALE HEINING and TYLER WADE HEINING, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ANNISTON, ALABAMA; DON HOYT,

individually and in his official capacity; and DARYL ABERNATHY,

individually and in his official capacity; Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-CV-1363-VEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

September 26, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs Ronald Dale Heining ("Ronald Heining") and his son, Tyler Wade Heining ("Tyler Heining"), initiated this civil rights lawsuit on August 12, 2015, against Defendants City of Anniston (the "City"), Don Hoyt ("City Manager Hoyt") (sued both individually and in his official capacity as City Manager), Robert J. Dean, Jr. ("City Public Works Director Dean") (sued both individually and in his official capacity as Public Works Director for the City), and Daryl Abernathy ("City Assistant Street Superintendent Abernathy") (sued both individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Street Superintendent for the City) (City Manager Hoyt, City Public Works Director Dean, and City Assistant Street Superintendent Abernathy are sometimes referred to collectively as the "Individual Defendants"). (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) on August 26, 2015, pursuant to this court's Order Requiring Repleader (the "Repleader Order"). (Doc. 4). The First Amended Complaint contains sixteen causes of action-half of which allege federal claims and the other half of which assert state law claims.

PLAINTIFFS' FEDERAL LAW CLAIMS

Specifically, Plaintiffs' federal claims are - with the exception of Count Eight - all constitutional claims by and through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They are described with more particularity below.

• Count One (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for unlawful seizure in violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 5 at 6-8 ¶¶ 26-36);

• Count Two (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for malicious prosecution in violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 9-10 ¶¶ 37-44);

• Count Three (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for abuse of process in violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendmentrights. (Id. at 10-12 ¶¶ 45-52);

• Count Four (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for a non-specific deprivation of liberty in violation of Plaintiffs' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 12-14 ¶¶ 53-63);

• Count Five (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for a non-specific deprivation of liberty in violation of Plaintiffs' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 15-17 ¶¶ 64-75);

• Count Six (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for a non-specific deprivation of liberty in violation of Plaintiffs' Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 17-19 ¶¶ 76-86);

• Count Seven (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for a non-specific deprivation of liberty in violation of Plaintiffs' Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 20-22 ¶¶ 87-97); and

• Count Eight (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for conspiracy to commit constitutional violations brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985. (Id. at 22-24 ¶¶ 98-108).

PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW CLAIMS

Plaintiffs' state law counts are as follows:

• Count Nine (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for falsearrest and imprisonment. (Id. at 25-26 ¶¶ 109-113);

• Count Ten (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for assault and battery. (Id. at 26-27 ¶¶ 114-118);

• Count Eleven (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for malicious prosecution. (Id. at 27-28 ¶¶ 119-124);

• Count Twelve (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for abuse of process. (Id. at 28-29 ¶¶ 125-130);

• Count Thirteen (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for negligence. (Id. at 29-30 ¶¶ 131-136);

• Count Fourteen (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for wantonness. (Id. at 30-31 ¶¶ 137-142);

• Count Fifteen (asserted against the City pursuant to Ala. Code § 11-47-190)¹ for neglectfulness. (Id. at 31-32 ¶¶ 143-146); and

• Count Sixteen (asserted against all Defendants and in all capacities) for conspiracy. (Id. at 32-33 ¶¶ 147-151).

THE PENDING MOTION

Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) (the "Motion") filed on February 28, 2017. The parties have supported and opposed the Motion. (Docs. 35, 38-40, 46, 51, 54). Accordingly, the Motion is ready for disposition and, for the reasons explained below, is due to be GRANTED. Specifically, all of Plaintiffs' federal claims are due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all Defendants. Further, all of Plaintiffs' state law claims are due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all Defendants other than Robert J. Dean, Jr. in his individual capacity and Daryl Abernathy in his individual capacity. Additionally, all of Plaintiffs' state law claims against Robert J. Dean, Jr. in his individual capacity and Daryl Abernathy in his individual capacity are also due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE except for their claims against those individuals in their individual capacities that are set out in Counts Nine (false arrest and false imprisonment) Count Eleven (malicious prosecution), Count Twelve (abuse of process), and Count Sixteen (conspiracy to commit these torts). Finally, the court finds that no federal claims remain and declines to exercise it supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. Accordingly, such claims are due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND², ³

Tyler Heining, together with his mother, owned a janitorial business known as B&T Supplies ("B&T") that sold various items like toilet tissue, paper towels, handsoap, road deicer, and degreaser to the City. AF No. 1;⁴ (Doc. 35-2 at 8 at 25-28).⁵ Ronald Heining helped out with the company, including making sales contracts with the City. AF No 1; (Doc. 35-2 at 9 at 29); (Doc. 35-1 at 54 at 33);⁶ AF No. 2.

According to Ronald Heining, in June or July of 2012, some unknown person (or persons) slipped a sealed envelope under the door of B&T. AF No. 3.1. The envelope stated, "Deliver Ben Little." AF No. 3.2. Ben Little ("Councilman Little") was an Anniston Councilman. AF No. 3.3. Ronald Heining testified that he did not know Councilman Little and found it odd that someone would slip an envelope under the door of B&T for Councilman Little. AF No. 4.

Inside the envelope were two or three sheets of paper concerning ethical violations committed by City officials, particularly within in the public works department. AF No. 5.1. Ronald Heining delivered the envelope to Councilman Little. AF No. 5.2. After Councilman Little read the envelope's contents, he and Ronald Heining went to the office of City Manager Hoyt. AF No. 6. Hoyt then read the two or three sheets of paper and said he would investigate the matter. AF No. 6.

Hoyt testified that this meeting with Councilman Little and Ronald Heining was actually the second time that Ronald Heining had come to see him (Hoyt). AF No. 7.1.⁷ On the first occasion, Ronald Heining had come alone and accused City Public Works Director Dean, the head of the public works department, of not having proper credentials to hold his position. AF No. 7.2.⁸ Hoyt conducted an investigation of that allegation. AF No. 8.1.⁹ Hoyt testified that even though Dean did not have an engineering degree (Doc. 40-2 at 36), Hoyt concluded that whoever had alleged that Dean lacked the proper credentials was wrong. AF No. 8.2.¹⁰

Hoyt also conducted an investigation of each of the allegations of impropriety within the Public Works Department that were presented to him by Councilman Little and Ronald Heining. (Doc. 35-1 at 45-46); (Doc. 35-5 at 26).During his investigation, Hoyt had a meeting with the Public Works Department to discuss the rumors and allegations, to inform the employees that he would investigate and prepare a report, and to tell the employees to refrain from spreading rumors. AF No. 12.

Holt took no action against Dean and City Assistant Street Superintendent Abernathy after investigating the allegations. Plaintiffs question the thoroughness of Hoyt's investigation and point out that each man later pleaded guilty to an ethics violation related to the conduct that Hoyt investigated. (Doc. 51 at 5-6 ¶ 10); (Doc. 38-4 at 47-51);¹¹ (Doc. 40-4 at 54-55).¹²

James Fluker ("Mr. Fluker"), a laborer who formerly worked for the City Public Works Department, has sworn in an affidavit dated July 11, 2015,¹³ that he was recruited by the Individual Defendants to set up both Councilman Little and Plaintiffs.¹⁴ Although the timeline provided by Mr. Fluker is not entirely clear, Mr.Fluker testified that during a meeting that took place at the old National Guard Armory, Dean and Abernathy "confronted [him] about talking to [Councilman] Little" and "asked [him] to meet privately with [them] and Hoyt while at the Armory meeting." (Doc. 5-1 at 2 ¶ 11). "Dean told [Mr. Fluker] that if [he] didn't help them to set up [Councilman] Little, then they would fire [him]." (Doc. 5-1 at 2 ¶ 12). Mr. Fluker maintains that Dean and Abernathy "asked [him] to call [Councilman] Little and get [Councilman Little] to ask [Mr. Fluker] to get a copy of a DVD dealing with a stolen trailer." (Doc. 5-1 at 2 ¶ 12).

Abernathy then took Mr. Fluker to Dean's office. (Doc. 5-1 at 1 ¶ 6). Dean was already there and stated that "he wanted [Councilman] Little gone because they wanted to contract our jobs." (Doc. 5-1 at 1 ¶ 6). Hoyt subsequently walked into the office and "said to [Mr. Fluker] that [he] was doing the right thing by helping to prosecute [Councilman] Little." (Doc. 5-1 at 1 ¶ 7).

Around this same time, Mr. Fluker and Ronald Heining attended a City Council Meeting in which Councilman Little read and discussed the accusations of impropriety...