Hunter v. Town of Mocksville
| Decision Date | 21 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | 1:12-CV-333 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | KENNETH L. HUNTER, RICK A. DONATHAN, and JERRY D. MEDLIN, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF MOCKSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT W. COOK, in his official capacity as Administrative Chief of the Mocksville Police Department and in his individual capacity; CHRISTINE W. BRALLEY, in her official capacity as Town Manager of the Town of Mocksville and in her individual capacity, Defendants. |
The Court previously entered Orders, (Docs. 71, 88), ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 37), and Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and for Relief from Judgment. (Doc. 80.) In those Orders, the Court indicated it would file an opinion explaining its rulings as time permitted. For the reasons stated herein, the plaintiffs have presented evidence sufficient to raise a disputed question of material fact as to whether their First Amendment rights were violated. Despite this, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, and there is no evidence the Town had a policy of retaliation, so all § 1983 claims will be dismissed. The related state law claims survive and may proceed to trial.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence shows the following: The plaintiffs, Kenneth Hunter, Rick Donathan, and Jerry Medlin, were police officers with the Mocksville Police Department. Assistant Chief Hunter had worked for the MPD since 1985, Lieutenant Donathan since 1998, and Detective Medlin since 2006. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶¶ 4-5; Doc. 43-2 at ¶¶ 3-4; Doc. 43-3 at ¶¶ 3, 5.) Over the years, the plaintiffs developed a range of concerns about defendant Police Chief Robert Cook and his leadership of the MPD. Specifically, the plaintiffs observed Chief Cook drinking alcohol publicly, excessively, and while in uniform, and they feared that this was jeopardizing the MPD's credibility in the community, (Doc. 43-1 at ¶¶ 12-16; Doc. 43-2 at ¶¶ 9-10; Doc. 43-3 at ¶¶ 10-13); believed that Chief Cook was violating the law by driving a police car with blue lights flashing and otherwise engaging in activity that indicated he was a certified law enforcement officer, even though he had never been certified, (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 17; Doc. 43-2 at ¶¶ 11-12; Doc. 43-3 at ¶¶ 14-15); suspected that Chief Cook and Assistant Chief Daniel Matthews were mismanaging MPD and Davie County Law Enforcement Association funds and in some cases improperly using those funds for personal uses, (Doc. 43-1 at ¶¶ 18-19; Doc. 43-3 at ¶¶ 16-18); felt that Chief Cook's failure to discipline other officers' serious misconduct undermined morale within the MPD and posed a threat to public safety, (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 49; Doc. 43-2 at ¶¶ 14-16; Doc. 43-3 at ¶¶ 20-23); and perceived racial discrimination in the MPD. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶¶ 9, 15; Doc. 45-2 at 10-11).
Over the years, each of the three plaintiffs raised their concerns about Chief Cook and Assistant Chief Matthews with the Mocksville Town Manager, defendant Christine Bralley. (Doc. 37-2 at ¶¶ 8-9; Doc. 43-1 at ¶¶ 22, 28; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 17; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 24.) Assistant Chief Hunter did not notice any improvement on the part of Chief Cook or Assistant ChiefMatthews, and he worried about potential retaliation based on how Chief Cook had reacted to other individuals who questioned his policies or management. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶¶ 22, 28.) Lieutenant Donathan raised his concerns with Town Manager Bralley but was soon after criticized by Assistant Chief Matthews about one of the concerns he had raised. (Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 18.) A month after Detective Medlin sent Town Manager Bralley a letter detailing his concerns about the MPD, Chief Cook demoted him to the position of patrol officer. (Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 24.) Although Town Manager Bralley later overruled Chief Cook's decision, Detective Medlin came to believe that raising issues internally or with Town Manager Bralley could result in retaliation. (Id.) Lieutenant Donathan concluded that raising concerns about the MPD with Town Manager Bralley might result in retaliation from his supervisors. (Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 18.)
In December 2011, five MPD officers, including the three plaintiffs, met privately and discussed their shared concern that Chief Cook and Deputy Assistant Chief Matthews were putting their personal interests ahead of the department. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 29; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 31; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 28.) At the meeting, the plaintiffs decided to seek an investigation by state officials of corruption within the MPD. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 30; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 32; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 28.) According to Assistant Chief Hunter, the plaintiffs made this decision because they "were ashamed of what the MPD had become in the community, and truly felt, as citizens of the community, that Mocksville deserved an effective police force that served everyone equally." (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 31.)
The plaintiffs set up a meeting with local NAACP representatives, who, after hearing the plaintiffs' concerns about the MPD, advised them to contact a state agency. (Id. at ¶ 32; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 33; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 29; Doc. 43-6 at ¶¶ 3, 6; Doc. 43-7 at ¶¶ 3, 6.) Assistant Chief Hunter had his daughter buy a disposable cell phone ("Tracfone") for him. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 33.)On December 14, 2011, the plaintiffs used the Tracfone to call the North Carolina Attorney General's Office but were told to refer their complaints to local authorities. (Id. at ¶¶ 35-36; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 35; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 32; see also Doc. 43-12 at ¶ 4(c) ().) Because Chief Cook had close relationships with local authorities, the plaintiffs chose instead to contact the North Carolina Governor's Office, and again they used the Tracfone. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶¶ 36-37; Doc. 43-2 at ¶¶ 35-36; Doc. 43-3 at ¶¶ 32-33; Doc. 43-12 at ¶ 4(c).) The plaintiffs briefly conveyed many of their concerns to someone at the Governor's Office without revealing their identities or indicating which police chief, police department, or town was involved. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 37; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 37; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 33.) They provided their Tracfone number and were told that someone would call them back. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 38; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 38; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 34.) Later that day, a different person from the Governor's Office called the Tracfone, which Lieutenant Donathan answered, and the Governor's representative offered to request an investigation by the State Bureau of Investigation on the plaintiffs' behalf. (Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 39.) Lieutenant Donathan gave him permission to do so and identified the MPD as the police department in question. (Id.)
The following week, Detective Medlin observed SBI Agent D.J. Smith in the MPD offices. (Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 35.) Agent Smith was the local SBI representative in the Mocksville area. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 41; Doc. 48-3 at 3.) The plaintiffs had worked with Agent Smith and knew he was close to Chief Cook and Deputy Assistant Chief Matthews. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 41.) Detective Medlin observed Agent Smith show Deputy Assistant Chief Matthews a piece of paper and perceived that the two men were looking for Chief Cook. (Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 35.) Soon thereafter, the plaintiffs received a message on the Tracfone from Agent Smith, who stated hewas following up on their request for an investigation. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 40; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 42; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 37; Doc. 43-12 at ¶ 4(d).)
On or about December 20, 2011, Agent Smith contacted Captain Christopher Shuskey of the Davie County Sheriff's Office1 and told him that an anonymous complaint about Chief Cook had been made to the Governor's Office. (Doc. 49-1 at 3-7.) Agent Smith asked Captain Shuskey to check whether the phone number used to make that complaint belonged to anyone listed in the Sheriff's Office's records. (Id. at 5-7; Doc. 48-3 at 16-17.) Captain Shuskey found only an old listing of questionable value associating the number with a Hispanic female. (Doc. 48-3 at 16; Doc. 49-1 at 6-7.) Captain Shuskey contacted Officer Nelson Turrentine of the MPD and asked Officer Turrentine to run the number through the MPD's records. (Doc. 49-1 at 7.) Officer Turrentine said he did not recognize the number but thought the name listed on the old record might be that of a Hispanic female who had recently been with a relative of Assistant Chief Hunter when the relative was arrested. (Doc. 49-1 at 4; Doc. 48-5 at 40.)
Both Lieutenant Donathan and Detective Medlin had placed calls to and received calls from the Tracfone using their MPD-issued cell phones, (Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 43), and this was reflected on the MPD's Sprint billing records. (Doc. 43-12 at ¶ 7.) On December 27, 2011, Town Manager Bralley contacted Sprint customer service for help in setting up an online account; she mentioned that she wanted to check the call records for a phone number that she did not identify. (Doc. 43-14 at 10.) Around this time, before any of the plaintiffs were terminated, Town Manager Bralley notified Chief Cook that Lieutenant Donathan had used his MPD-issued cell phone for thirty-seven hours in a month. (Doc. 48 at 43.) The Sprint invoice for the billing period ending on December 23, which was issued on December 27 and included the phone callsbetween the plaintiffs and the Tracfone, listed Lieutenant Donathan as having used his cell phone for thirty-six hours and fifty-two minutes. (Doc. 43-12 at ¶ 6.)
On December 29, 2011, Chief Cook fired each of the plaintiffs. (Doc. 43-1 at ¶ 4 & p. 26; Doc. 43-2 at ¶ 3 & p. 25; Doc. 43-3 at ¶ 3 & p. 20; Doc. 48-1 at 20-21.) Termination letters handed to each plaintiff indicate the reasons were related to performance. (Doc. 43-1 at 26; Doc. 43-2 at 25; Doc. 43-3 at 20.) The plaintiffs have presented evidence that the performance-related reasons given were false and that none had been given any notice of any performance issues before t...
To continue reading
Request your trial