Mayhew v. Johnson
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:21-CV-141-SA-DAS |
| Decision Date | 10 August 2022 |
| Parties | MIKE MAYHEW PLAINTIFF v. JIM JOHNSON (IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY); JOHN HALL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ROGER CRIBB (IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY); AND LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
On September 8, 2021, Mike Mayhew initiated this civil action by filing his Complaint [1], asserting various claims against Jim Johnson, John Hall, Roger Cribb, and Lee County. Mayhew has since filed an Amended Complaint [25] against the same Defendants. On February 11, 2022, Cribb filed a Motion to Dismiss [38]. The other Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss [47] on April 6, 2022. Both Motions [38, 47] are ripe for review. Having reviewed the parties' filings, along with the relevant authorities, the Court is prepared to rule.[1]
Mike Mayhew's employment with the Lee County Sheriff's Department commenced in 2007. He contends that he was a hard worker and had an impeccable work record prior to the events giving rise to this lawsuit.
By way of background, Jim Johnson served as Lee County Sheriff at all relevant times. John Hall served as Johnson's Chief Deputy. As alleged by Mayhew, “[i]t is an established fact at the [Sheriff's Department] that anyone who gets crossways with [Hall] gets fired.” [46] at p. 2.
Apparently, Mayhew did just that in late 2016, asserting that he got “crossways with [Hall] . . . over a trivial and non-work related matter.” Id.
In early 2017, Mayhew learned that he needed surgery to address a “serious health condition.” [25] at p. 5. According to Mayhew, “[t]he surgery was expected to require [him] to be completely off work for approximately two to four weeks with a gradual return to full duty afterwards.” Id. Mayhew approached Johnson about his medical condition and requested that he be permitted to work from home for some period of time after his surgery. Johnson approved the request so long as Mayhew was able to adequately supervise his shift.
On February 6, 2017, Mayhew underwent the scheduled surgery and thereafter began working from home, as had been agreed upon. Mayhew contends that on February 15, 2017, Hall placed a tracking device on Mayhew's patrol car. Mayhew takes the position that Hall did so because he was “eager to fabricate a pretext to fire [him].” Id. at p 4.
On April 17, 2017, Hall called Mayhew in for a meeting, during which Mayhew alleges that Hall “falsely accused [him] of getting paid for work that he did not perform due to his spending time at home during his shift.” Id. at p. 5. Hall advised Mayhew that he could resign or face termination, noting that the Attorney General's Office would be notified of the allegations for submitting false time reports. Mayhew resigned.[2]
After leaving his employment with the Sheriff's Department Mayhew “committed himself to running against [Johnson] for Sheriff and told several individuals” of his intent to do so. [46] at p. 6. Mayhew alleges that Johnson learned about Mayhew's plan and began taking steps to damage Mayhew's reputation and career. For example, Mayhew contends that, after he applied for law enforcement positions with two local law enforcement agencies, both agencies declined to extend an employment offer to him because Johnson told them not to hire him.
In August 2017, Mayhew called Johnson regarding rumors of an Attorney General's Office investigation against Mayhew. Mayhew and Johnson then met in person to further discuss the matter. According to Mayhew, Johnson confirmed that he had communicated with the Public Integrity Division of the Attorney General's Office-specifically, Investigator Roger Cribb- about Mayhew's alleged submission of false time reports during the time period he was authorized to telework following his surgery (February 2017 through April 2017). In his Amended Complaint [25], Mayhew alleges that during the meeting Johnson told him that he had “taken care of it.” [25] at p. 9. Mayhew also avers that Johnson encouraged him to not run for Sheriff but to instead run for Justice Court Judge. Mayhew declined.
At some point after that meeting, Mayhew accepted an employment offer with a wrecker service in Lee County. However, Mayhew was unexpectedly terminated when his employer advised him that he was “hurting [the employer's] business.” [25] at p. 10. Mayhew contends that the wrecker service terminated him because Johnson had notified the wrecker service that it would be removed from Lee County's wrecker rotation if the business continued to employ Mayhew.
At some point in Fall 2017, Investigator Cribb called Mayhew, advised him of the investigation, and asked if Mayhew would be willing to meet with him. Mayhew agreed, and the two met at a hotel in Tupelo, Mississippi. The meeting lasted approximately 45 to 60 minutes. Cribb asked Mayhew “questions about going home during his shift and about golf.” [25] at p. 12. Mayhew alleges that he explained during the meeting that he was authorized to work from home during the period of time at issue. He also provided the names of multiple people who could corroborate his version of events.
Mayhew contends that, despite conducting the interview, Cribb “deliberately failed to reasonably and objectively investigate the charge,” averring that he instead “relied on knowingly fabricated evidence, refused to conduct witnesses [sic] interviews from individuals with material evidence tending to show [his] innocence, and falsified statements in order to make [him] appear culpable.” [25] at p. 13. Mayhew further alleges that Cribb, Johnson, and Hall acted in concert to arrest and prosecute him for three counts of submitting a false writing-crimes which they knew he did not commit. As to the prosecution of the charges, Mayhew further alleges that those three individuals knowingly fabricated evidence, concealed and suppressed relevant and material evidence, and withheld exculpatory information from the grand jury. Mayhew was indicted on three counts on March 29, 2018. He was thereafter “forced to surrender himself to the Lee County Adult Detention Center, submit to the booking process, and have his photograph released to the local media by the [Sheriff's Department].” Id. at p. 14-15.
Mayhew's Amended Complaint [25] further alleges that the prosecution initially offered him a chance to plea to a misdemeanor charge but that the offer was rescinded after Johnson “threw a ‘screaming fit' and insist[ed] that any plea bargain offered to [Mayhew] had to be for a felony offense and must include jail time.” Id. at p. 15-16.[3] During the pendency of the criminal prosecution, another separate charge was brought against Mayhew, which he describes as follows in his Amended Complaint [25]:
[25] at p. 16-17.
Mayhew was again required to turn himself in, submit to a strip search and to the booking process, and have his photograph released to the local media-in addition to having his liberty restricted due to conditions on his release pending trial. Despite these two sets of charges against him, the prosecution ultimately stalled because, according to Mayhew, “it became increasingly clear . . . that nothing the Defendant Johnson, the Defendant Hall, and the Defendant Cribb alleged against [him] added up.” [25] at p. 18.
After a change in prosecutors, the prosecution filed a motion to nolle prosequi the indictment as to all charges. On September 8, 2020, the Circuit Court of Lee County granted the motion, and the charges were dismissed with prejudice.
In this civil action, Mayhew asserts a myriad of claims against Johnson, Hall, Cribb, and
Lee County. As to all Defendants, he alleges the following constitutional violations: (1) “violating his First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for political activity”; (2) “violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest, detention, and restraint of liberty without probable cause”; (3) “violating his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the fabrication of evidence, and the withholding and suppression of relevant, material and exculpatory information during the course of a criminal prosecution”; and (4) “violating his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from selective prosecution based on First Amendment political activity.” [25] at p. 20-22. As to only Johnson, Hall, and Cribb, he asserts a state law claim for malicious prosecution. Finally, he asserts a tortious interference with contract claim against only Johnson.
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain...
To continue reading
Request your trial