Henrise v. Horvath

• Decision Date: 30 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. Civ.A.3:97-CV-2472-L.,Civ.A.3:97-CV-2472-L.
• Parties: James T. HENRISE, Plaintiff, v. John D. HORVATH, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

174 F.Supp.2d 493

James T. HENRISE, Plaintiff, v. John D. HORVATH, et al., Defendants.

No. Civ.A.3:97-CV-2472-L.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

April 30, 2001.

Douglas R. Larson, Law Office of Douglas R. Larson, Mesquite, TX, Russell Daniels, Logan & Lowry, Vinita, OK, for James T. Henrise.

Joe C. Tooley, Tooley & Voss, Dallas, TX, for John D. Horvath.

Joe C. Tooley, Tooley & Voss, Dallas, TX, Edwin P. Voss, Jr., Brown & Hofmeister, Dallas, TX, for Clarence V. Johns, Warren Box, Robin Flores.

James T. Jeffrey, Jr., Law Office of Jim Jeffrey, Arlington, TX, for City of Desoto.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LINDSAY, District Judge.

Before the court are the following motions:

1. Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Johns, Box, Horvath, and Flores, filed November 5, 1999;

2. Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Motion for Continuance, filed December 9, 1999;

3. City of DeSoto's Motion and Supporting Brief to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed May 30, 2000; and

4. Second Motion to Dismiss of Johns, Box, and Flores; First Motion to Dismiss of Horvath; and Alternative Motion to Strike, filed May 31, 2000.

The court, for the reasons stated herein, grants the Second Motion to Dismiss of Johns, Box, and Flores; grants the First Motion to Dismiss of Horvath; denies Defendants' Alternative Motion to Strike; grants the City of DeSoto's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; denies as moot the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Johns, Box, Horvath, and Flores; and denies as moot Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Motion for Continuance.

I. Procedural and Factual Background

Plaintiff James Henrise ("Plaintiff" or "Henrise") initiated this litigation against Defendants John Horvath, Clarence Johns, Warren Box, Robin Flores, and City of DeSoto (collectively "Defendants" unless otherwise indicated) on October 7, 1997, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Henrise filed his First Amended Complaint on October 30, 1997. As a result of two court orders on April 21, 2000, Plaintiff filed on May 18, 2000, a Rule 7(a) Reply and his Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint").¹ Plaintiff contends that as a result of the acts and omissions of all Defendants, he has been retaliated against in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.² In response to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Defendants Johns, Box, and Flores filed a second motion to dismiss; Defendant Horvath filed a motion to dismiss; and Defendant City of DeSoto filed a second motion to dismiss.³

The court now sets forth the operative facts of Plaintiff's Complaint upon which it relies in ruling on Defendants' motions to dismiss. See Compl. at 2-6. The facts are accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the pending motions to dismiss. Arguments and conclusory allegations unsupported by specific factual assertions are not included in the recitation.

Plaintiff was hired as a police officer by the City of DeSoto on January 14, 1985. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant in the latter part of 1989. Thereafter, Henrise gained training and experience and served for substantial periods of time in both the Criminal Investigations Division ("CID") as well as the Special Investigation Unit ("SIU"). Henrise received the "Top Cop" award by the DeSoto Citizens Police Academy Alumni.

Henrise holds a Master Peace Officer Certification from the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education, and retains departmental seniority in the rank of sergeant. While working in SIU, Henrise was under the command of Lieutenant P. Paul Pothen ("Pothen"). SIU undertook investigations into public corruption, vice, narcotics, and organized crime.

In August 1994, Defendant Horvath was confirmed as Chief of Police of the City of DeSoto. Because of their work in SIU during the early part of 1995, Henrise and Pothen formed the good faith belief that Horvath was involved in serious misconduct which had criminal implications. This included, but was not limited to, the release of confidential police murder investigation files to a civilian investigator, the removal of and failure to return material physical evidence related to a murder investigation, and the acceptance of both public and private funds to finance a family vacation to Europe under alleged "police business." In addition, the SIU uncovered what appeared to it to be significant public corruption, including bribery, surrounding high ranking DeSoto public officials and their cohorts.

In April 1995, Horvath, who was Chief of Police of the City of DeSoto, had a private meeting with Henrise. During the meeting, Chief Horvath demanded that Henrise provide him any information that he (Henrise) had which was adverse to Pothen, and to observe Pothen and report back any matters which were negative against Pothen. Henrise refused Horvath's demand.

Henrise and Pothen made known their allegations regarding Horvath by directly notifying DeSoto City Manager Ron Holifield ("Holifield"), in detail, of the various acts of misconduct in which Police Chief Horvath had engaged. Holifield, as DeSoto's City Manager, failed to act upon the complaints made by Pothen and Henrise. In addition, at or around the same time period, City employee Linda Bertoni filed a 19-page sworn statement against Police Chief Horvath with the City Manager, City Mayor, and City Council members that detailed Horvath's misconduct. This notification to the City did not result in any investigative action, or any action whatsoever, being taken by the City into the actions of Horvath.

The end result of Pothen's and Henrise's complaints was that both officers were placed on administrative leave by Horvath. Both officers were charged with a complaint regarding a search conducted by SIU. On the advice of counsel, Plaintiff agreed to accept a one-day suspension to resolve the matter, and then return to DeSoto with the same rank and seniority. Plaintiff maintains that he committed no error during the search at issue, and only accepted the suspension so he could return to police work. Pothen was terminated and pursued his appellate remedies under state civil service laws, and later sought other remedies in federal court. During this time period, Henrise maintained a strong association with Pothen, both as a fellow officer and close personal police friend. Police officers rely on each other not only for emotional and physical support on and off duty, but also routinely rely on each other in life-threatening situations.

After his termination, Pothen placed the City and the individual Defendants on notice that he would challenge his termination. The individual Defendants were all aware that Henrise maintained a close personal relationship with Pothen and would testify favorably on Pothen's behalf, and that Henrise's testimony would be adverse to the City and Horvath.

Henrise returned to work on October 4, 1995, and reported to Defendant Box. Although Plaintiff's status was for regular duty, Box assigned Henrise to tasks such as enforcing handicap parking, being municipal court bailiff, filing citations, and moving boxes. Henrise was a highly trained investigator and had seniority in his position. Plaintiff describes the tasks that he performed as "menial."

Plaintiff contends that this assignment of tasks was the first in a series of retaliatory and harassing events against him. Henrise alleges that these acts were done in an effort to punish him for his association with Pothen, to intimidate him into not testifying on Pothen's behalf in a federal lawsuit, and to retaliate against him for continuing to associate with Pothen and providing truthful testimony on Pothen's behalf in a federal forum. The court finds it unnecessary to enumerate the other alleged retaliatory and harassing events, as they are not necessary for its analysis.

II. Appropriate Legal Standards

A. Motion to Dismiss — 12(b)(6) Failure to State a Claim

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir.1997). A district court cannot dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir.1995). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In ruling on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the pleadings. Id.; Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1229, 120 S.Ct. 2659, 147 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000). The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid cause of action when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Lowrey, 117 F.3d at 247. A plaintiff, however, must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, to avoid dismissal. Guidry v. Bank of La-Place, 954 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir.1992).

B. Qualified Immunity

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from suit as well as liability for civil damages, if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). A defendant official must affirmatively plead the defense of qualified immunity. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, ...