Peden v. Stephens
| Docket Number | 21-10723 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2022 |
| Citation | 50 F.4th 972 |
| Parties | Chase PEDEN, Marjorie Peden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Glenn STEPHENS, Carole Stephens, Butch Conway, Lou Solis, Danny Porter, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Tony Thomas, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Deborah V. Haughton, Haughton Law Firm, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Richard A. Carothers, Angela C. Couch, Thomas M. Mitchell, Carothers & Mitchell, LLC, Buford, GA, for Defendants-Appellees Glenn Stephens, Butch Conway, Lou Solis.
Jason C. Waymire, Terry Eugene Williams, Williams Morris & Waymire, LLC, Buford, GA, for Defendant-Appellee Carole Stephens.
Deborah Nolan Gore, Attorney General's Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee Danny Porter.
Thomas M. Clyde, Lesli Nicole Gaither, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Intervenor.
Before William Pryor, Chief Judge, Luck, Circuit Judge, and Moorer,* District Judge.
This summary-judgment appeal concerns adultery, defamation, and our appellate jurisdiction. Chase Peden, a sheriff's department employee, had an affair with the wife of a county administrator. The mistress allegedly conducted a smear campaign against Mrs. Peden and, when the affair ended, against Mr. Peden as well. The sheriff's department fired Mr. Peden, and a local prosecutor declined to prosecute the mistress for harassment. Suspecting the county administrator had a hand in both actions, the Pedens sued the mistress, the county administrator, and a host of other county officials for violating state and federal law. The district court entered a summary judgment in favor of the officials and certified that judgment as final even though claims against the mistress remained pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the summary judgment warranted certification under Rule 54(b), we lack jurisdiction. So, we dismiss the appeal.
In 2014, Chase Peden, an employee of the Gwinnett County Sheriff's Department, began an affair with Carole Stephens. Mr. Peden was married to Marjorie Peden. Mrs. Stephens was married to Glenn Stephens, the Gwinnett County Administrator.
Around the time the affair began, someone began sending anonymous messages to the Pedens and people who knew them. Letters sent to the Pedens’ church and the Pedens’ minor daughter "accused Mrs. Peden of being seen in the company of men other than her husband." Mrs. Peden also received letters that stated or implied that her husband was having an affair. The Pedens believe that Mrs. Stephens was responsible.
This conduct did not let up, even after the affair ended sometime in 2017. Later that year, the Sheriff's Department received a letter—referred to by the parties as the "Michael Letter" after its pseudonymous author—accusing Mr. Peden of "us[ing] his sheriff's car, county[-]issued phone, uniform[,] and time on the clock to meet his girlfriend[s]." The Michael Letter also accused Mr. Peden "of having sex while on duty and using his handcuffs and patrol car during sexual encounters with women at his part-time ... security job at a ... nightclub." And the letter mentioned a specific rendezvous "with another woman" at a fire station, a reference to a real meeting between Mr. Peden and Mrs. Stephens.
Chief Deputy Lou Solis directed the internal affairs unit to investigate the allegations in the Michael Letter. The investigators determined that Mr. Peden had committed neglect of duty, misused county property, and engaged in conduct unbecoming of a county employee—albeit based on conduct unrelated to the affair. Deputy Solis sustained the determinations, as did Sheriff R.L. "Butch" Conway. In the light of the report, Sheriff Conway terminated Mr. Peden. The Pedens suspect "that there was a quid pro quo arrangement between [Mr. Stephens and Sheriff Conway] that [Sheriff] Conway would terminate [Mr.] Peden if [Mr.] Stephens approved the purchase of" a 2018 Dodge Charger Hellcat for the sheriff's use.
In April 2018, Tony Thomas, a television reporter, made a request under Georgia's open-records law to the Sheriff's Department for information about Mr. Peden's firing. Thomas did not explain how he learned about the firing. The Department gave Thomas a copy of Mr. Peden's file.
The next day, Thomas ran a televised news story about Mr. Peden. The story mentioned the Michael Letter. And it contained video clips of the investigators’ interviews with Mr. Peden. Because those recordings were not yet available to the public, even through an open-records request, the Pedens surmise that someone in the Sheriff's Department leaked the recordings to Thomas.
The Pedens met with Gwinnett Judicial Circuit District Attorney Daniel "Danny" Porter about charging Mrs. Stephens with a crime because she continued to harass the Pedens and their children. District Attorney Porter told Mr. Stephens that he planned to interview Mrs. Stephens and permitted Mr. Stephens to attend the interview. After the interview, the district attorney declined to prosecute.
The Pedens brought a six-count complaint for damages against Glenn and Carole Stephens, Sheriff Conway, Deputy Solis, District Attorney Porter, and a John Doe defendant. Count one alleged that Deputy Solis and Mr. Stephens violated Mr. Peden's due-process rights by having him fired and by "orchestrat[ing] the leak" of the Michael Letter. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count two, against Mr. Stephens and District Attorney Porter, alleged that the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Stephens deprived the Pedens of the equal protection of the laws. See id. Counts three and four alleged that Mr. Stephens, Sheriff Conway, Deputy Solis, and District Attorney Porter had conspired to deprive the Pedens of their constitutional rights. See id. § 1985. Count five alleged that the Michael Letter was defamatory, that Mrs. Stephens wrote the letter, and that Mr. Stephens, Sheriff Conway, Deputy Solis, and a John Doe conspired with Mrs. Stephens "to reveal" to the press "confidential documents and video from the Sheriff's Department's investigation." Count six alleged that all the defendants engaged in intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Pedens.
While discovery was ongoing, the parties engaged in motion practice. The district court denied as untimely a motion to amend the complaint. The district court granted a motion to dismiss District Attorney Porter based on prosecutorial immunity. The district court also granted a motion to quash a subpoena directed at reporter Tony Thomas, whom the Pedens sought to depose.
At the close of discovery, Mr. Stephens, Sheriff Conway, and Deputy Solis moved for summary judgment. In response, the Pedens "voluntarily withdr[e]w" counts three and four, the section 1985 claims, but opposed the other portions of the motions. The Pedens did not request or receive permission to amend the pleadings to remove the withdrawn counts from the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The district court granted the motions for summary judgment. The district court stated that it would address only counts one, two, five, and six because the Pedens had "voluntarily withdrawn Counts III and IV." And it determined that the officials were entitled to summary judgment on the remaining claims against them.
Mr. Stephens, Sheriff Conway, and Deputy Solis then requested entry of partial final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). They acknowledged that the claims against Mrs. Stephens remained pending. But the officials explained that there were "no further viable claims remaining against" them. And they argued that there was "no just reason for delay[ing]" the entry of final judgment in their favor. See id. The officials asserted that the "pending ... claim[s] against Mrs. Stephens [were] not factually intertwined with those against [Mr.] Stephens, [Sheriff] Conway, and [Deputy] Solis." And the officials asserted that "equitable concerns weigh[ed] in [their] favor" because "a final judgment could be years away" if the claims against Mrs. Stephens went to trial "given the current situation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic."
The district court granted the motion for entry of partial final judgment. The district court again mentioned that the Pedens had "withdrawn their claims in Counts III and IV." It concluded that the order granting the officials’ motion for summary judgment was final as to Mr. Stephens, Sheriff Conway, and Deputy Solis because the order "completely dispose[d] of all viable claims against [them]." It concluded that the "adjudicated claims against [the officials were] distinct from" the claims still pending against Mrs. Stephens because "[t]he record reflects that the factual bases for these claims are different" and "[t]he legal defenses and theories are different." It concluded that "the equitable concerns weigh[ed] in favor of " the officials: "This litigation could potentially remain pending for quite a lengthy time due to the COVID-19 pandemic." And it concluded that the entry of partial final judgment would "in no way prejudice [the Pedens’] ability to pursue their remaining claims." So, the district court entered judgment in favor of "Glenn Stephens, R.L. ‘Butch’ Conway, and Lou Solis as to Counts I, II, V, and VI of the First Amended Complaint."
Before the deadline for noticing an appeal from the Rule 54(b) order, Mrs. Stephens filed—and the district court granted in part—a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion as to the emotional-distress claim. But it permitted the defamation claim against Mrs. Stephens to proceed to trial.
The Pedens timely appealed the Rule 54(b) order, and we asked the parties to answer a jurisdictional question: (Citations omitted.) The...
To continue reading
Request your trial