Hopkins v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 02 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 1:19-cv-00059,1:19-cv-00059 |
| Parties | STEPHEN MATTHEW HOPKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY "TONY" NICHOLS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 38). Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 45), Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. No. 50), Plaintiffs filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 56), and Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 60). For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be DENIED.
In 2018, Plaintiffs Matthew Hopkins and Julie Hopkins ("Mr. and/or Mrs. Hopkins") resided at 3417 Mealer Road in Chapel Hill, Tennessee ("the Hopkins' Residence") and owned a farm property located at 3706 Mealer Road in Chapel Hill, Tennessee ("the Hopkins' Farm") where they maintained over 40 cattle. (Doc. No. 47 ¶¶ 1-4, 7). At all times relevant to the present action, Defendant William "Billy" Lamb ("Sheriff Lamb") was the Sheriff of Marshall County, Tennessee, and Defendant Anthony Nichols ("Detective Nichols") was a detective with the Marshall County Sheriff's Department. (Doc. No. 28 ¶¶ 5, 4).
At some point before July 2, 2018, Detective Nichols was notified of a complaint that a dead cow was in a creek and that another cow was down in the pasture on the Hopkins' Farm. (Doc. No. 47 ¶ 4). Detective Nichols drove by the Hopkins' Farm and saw the dead cow in the creek and other cattle that did not appear in good health. (Id. ¶ 5).
On July 2, 2018, Detective Nichols appeared at the back door of the Hopkins' Residence with Tennessee Department of Agriculture Veterinarian Jill Johnson ("Dr. Johnson"), wearing his badge and gun, and demanded that Mrs. Hopkins escort them to the cattle on the Hopkins' Farm. (Id. ¶ 7). Mrs. Hopkins asked Detective Nichols if he could wait to see the cattle until her husband came home or until after she fed her children lunch to which Detective Nichols responded, (Nichols Deposition Transcript, Doc. No. 48-13 at PageID # 738; J. Hopkins Deposition Transcript, Doc. No. 48-7 at PageID #590; J. Hopkins Declaration, Doc. No. 48-15 ¶ 4). Mrs. Hopkins called Mr. Hopkins to inform him of the situation and then escorted Detective Nichols and Dr. Johnson to their Farm. (Doc. No. 47 ¶¶ 8-10). Dr. Johnson examined the Hopkins' cattle and completed a Livestock Welfare Examination Form dated July 2, 2018. (Id. ¶ 18). Dr. Johnson determined that probable cause for animal cruelty was present, as her examination had revealed that the cattle appeared to be subject to unreasonable failure to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter. (Id. ¶ 24).
Detective Nichols entered the Hopkins' Farm again on July 9, 2018, and July 12, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 34-36). While on the Hopkins' Farm on July 12, 2018, Detective Nichols and Dr. Johnson discovered two skeletal remains in a wooded portion of the pasture, as well as a sinkhole with the remains of multiple cattle. (Id. ¶ 37). Dr. Johnson examined the Hopkins' cattle and completed a Livestock Welfare Examination Form dated July 12, 2018. (Id. ¶ 39). Dr. Johnson again determined that probable cause for animal cruelty was present, as her examination had revealed that the cattle appeared to be subject to unreasonable failure to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter. (Id. ¶ 40). On July 13, 2018, Detective Nichols, Sheriff Lamb, and seven otherindividuals entered the Hopkins' Farm without a warrant and seized 49 of the Hopkins' cattle as evidence of a crime. (Id. ¶ 45).
On July 19, 2018, Detective Nichols swore out forty-nine (49) arrest warrants stating that Mr. Hopkins had violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-202 Cruelty to Animals. (Id. ¶ 46). While the criminal proceedings were pending against Mr. Hopkins, the cattle were sold on December 17, 2018, due to the costs of upkeep and the criminal cases were dismissed on the condition that Mr. Hopkins pay for the care of the cattle from the proceeds of the sale. (Id. ¶ 60).
On July 14, 2019, Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. No. 1). The Hopkins filed suit against Sheriff Lamb and Detective Nichols in both their individual and official capacities. (Doc. No. 28 ¶¶ 5-6). In Count I, the Hopkins assert that Defendants violated their rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. ¶¶ 66-83). In Count II, the Hopkins assert that Defendants violated their rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 84-101). In Count III, the Hopkins assert that Defendants violated their rights to be free from government takings without compensation pursuant to the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause. (Id. ¶¶ 102-106).
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party bringing the summary judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over material facts. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). The moving party may satisfy this burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an elementof the non-moving party's claim or by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Id.
In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court views the facts in the light most favorable for the nonmoving party, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Bible Believers v. Wayne Cty., Mich., 805 F.3d 228, 242 (6th Cir. 2015); Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir. 2003). The Court does not weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Rather, the Court determines whether sufficient evidence has been presented to make the issue of material fact a proper jury question. Id. The mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position is insufficient to survive summary judgment; instead, there must be evidence of which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003).
Section 1983 provides that "an individual may bring a private cause of action against anyone who, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or conferred by federal statute." Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley, 675 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Detective Nichols and Sheriff Lamb move for summary judgment on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
Courts employ the following two-part test to determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the alleged facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the official's conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established. See Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, Tennessee, 959 F.3d 678, 695 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)). "If either prong is not met, then the government officer is entitled to qualified immunity." Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579, 604 (6th Cir. 2018). "[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of showing that an officer is not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity." Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc., 912 F.3d 887, 898 (6th Cir. 2019). Applying these standards, the Court will now address each of the alleged constitutional violations in turn.
Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins claim that Detective Nichols and Sheriff Lamb violated their constitutional rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard, pursuant under the Fourteenth Amendment, when they seized their cattle without following the procedures set out in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-11-707. (See Doc. No. 28 ¶¶ 66-83). To establish this claim, Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins must show that "(1) [they] had a life, liberty, or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause; (2) [they were] deprived of this protected interest; and (3) the state did not afford [them] adequate procedural rights prior to depriving [them] of the property interest." O'Neill v. Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro. Gov't, 662 F.3d 723, 732 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
Detective Nichols and Sheriff Lamb assert that the Hopkins cannot establish that they had a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause because their cattle were seized as part of criminal proceedings. (Doc. No. 39 at 16 ()(quoting King v. Montgomery Cty., Tenn., 797 F. App'x 949, 956 (6th Cir. 2020)). Defendants are correct, as the Sixth Circuit has explained "it is the Fourth Amendment which establishes procedural protections in this part of the criminal justice area," not the Fourteenth Amendment. Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 313 (6th Cir. 2005) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial