Peter v. Franklin Cnty.
| Docket Number | 4:22-cv-05029-MKD |
| Decision Date | 03 May 2023 |
| Parties | KOHL R. ST. PETER, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY; JIM RAYMOND, Sheriff; and LEE BARROW, Detective, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' MOTION AND MOTION FOR FIRST AMENDED PLEADING
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15. The Court has reviewed the record and is fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, ECF No. 15; denies Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 22; denies Plaintiff's motion for first amended pleading, ECF No. 25; and denies as moot Defendants' Motion to Expedite Hearing on Status of Case ECF No. 28.
Plaintiff, a former police officer with the Connell Police Department, filed a pro se Complaint alleging Section 1983 violations against Defendants Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff Jim Raymond, and Franklin County Detective/Connell Mayor Lee Barrow. ECF No. 1. Specifically, he alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. ECF No. 1 at 3. These allegations arise out of five incidents taking place in 2017 through 2019, in which Plaintiff was investigated for incidents involving his ex-wife and father, and at a town hall meeting. Id. at 7-9. Plaintiff ultimately was terminated from his job as a police officer. Id.[1] Plaintiff proffers that Defendants “acted outside their Oath and Under Color of Law, causing Mental Anguish, Emotional Distress, Pain and Suffering, Loss of Career Earnings and Benefits,” and loss of consortium. Id. at 5. Plaintiff seeks $5,000,000 in damages. Id.
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal, ECF No. 15, and concurrently provided Plaintiff with a Notice of Dismissal Motion, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 22, and Defendants responded, ECF No. 23. Plaintiff filed a Motion for First Amended Pleading, ECF No. 25, and Defendants responded, ECF No. 26.
On December 15, 2017, Plaintiff's ex-wife initially contacted the Connell Police Department, which referred the matter to the Franklin County Sherriff's office due to Plaintiff's employment with the Connell Police Department. ECF No. 18 at 7. Plaintiff's ex-wife reported to the Franklin County Sheriff's Office that Plaintiff received her mail, sent by Three Rivers Family Medicine (Three Rivers), and opened it without permission. ECF No. 1 at 7; ECF No. 18 at 7. On December 20, 2017, a Franklin County officer spoke with Three Rivers staff, who stated the letter in question had never been mailed and they were not able to say how Plaintiff came into possession of the letter. Id. at 10. The officer then, after reading Miranda warnings, questioned Plaintiff in his home regarding the mail.
ECF No. 1 at 4, 7; ECF No. 18 at 10. Plaintiff showed the letter to the officer, and the envelope, which was addressed to Plaintiff's daughter at Plaintiff's mailing address. ECF No. 18 at 10. The officer then confirmed with Three Rivers that they had mailed the letter addressed to Plaintiff's daughter to Plaintiff's mailing address. Id. at 13-14. Franklin County Sheriff's Office did not file any charges against Plaintiff. ECF No. 16 at 3; ECF No. 18 at 14.
On March 31, 2018,[2] Plaintiff's ex-wife initiated a complaint against Plaintiff with the Franklin County Sherriff's Office, alleging Plaintiff was attempting to harass her. ECF No. 1 at 7; ECF No. 15 at 6-7; ECF No. 18 at 17. The Connell Police Department was notified of the allegation. ECF No. 18 at 20. On April 4, 2018, a Franklin County Sherriff's officer questioned Plaintiff. ECF No. 18 at 22. Franklin County Sheriff's Office did not file charges. ECF No. 16 at 3.
On October 30, 2019, Plaintiff contends he exercised his First Amendment rights by meeting with the press about “a leaked memo from [Defendant] Raymond to his Deputies” to speak out about Defendants Raymond and Barrow. ECF No. 1 at 7-8. At this time, Plaintiff was no longer a Connell police officer. Id. at 8, 10. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Raymond retaliated against him by advising other deputies that they could not speak with Plaintiff. Id. at 8. He further alleges that Defendants Raymond and Barrow defamed him by making false statements about him to other law enforcement and community members. Id. Plaintiff proffers that he attended a town hall that Defendant Raymond held on November 10, 2019, in Connell. Id. The town hall meeting was open to public comments, and Plaintiff made comments. During his comments, Plaintiff was heckled by audience members. ECF No. 17 at 6. Plaintiff alleges that at the town hall meeting, Defendant Raymond introduced Plaintiff by his full name and stated to the town hall attendees, “He is not a cop, doesn't have a badge, any arrest powers and will never be a cop again.” ECF No. 1 at 8.
Regarding Defendant Barrow, Plaintiff proffers that Defendant Barrow attended the 2019 event in his capacity as mayor. Id. (). Plaintiff contends that Defendant Barrow, acting as mayor, tampered with and concealed public records, including emails from Defendant Raymond. Id. at 10. Sometime after the November 2019 town hall, Plaintiff submitted his tort claim to Franklin County, in which he alleged Defendants engaged in wrongdoings at the town hall meeting and later impeded an investigation. Id. The County declined the claim in an emailed letter in December 2021. Id.; ECF No. 17 at 5-7.
On April 28, 2018, Plaintiff was at a dental office with his daughter when he reported he was assaulted by his ex-wife's boyfriend, Mr. Nelson. ECF No. 1 at 89; ECF No. 21 at 8. Both Plaintiff and his ex-wife called 911 to report an assault. ECF No. 17 at 6; ECF No. 21 at 8. Plaintiff alleges that he punched Mr. Nelson in response to Mr. Nelson pushing him. ECF No. 21 at 8. There were variations in the stories between the individuals involved, including varying details as to whether Plaintiff had a gun on him and pointed it at his ex-wife. ECF No. 1 at 7-8; ECF No. 21 at 8. No charges were filed. ECF No. 17 at 6; ECF No. 21 at 8. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Barrow interfered with the Kennewick Police Department regarding the investigation into the assault. ECF No. 1 at 8-9; ECF No. 17 at 6-7.
On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff and his father were investigated regarding wood stolen from a church. ECF No. 1 at 9; ECF No. 19 at 7; ECF No. 20 at 8. Plaintiff reports his father was previously allowed to take the firewood. ECF No. 1 at 9. The investigation was completed by Adams County, due to a conflict of interest. ECF No. 17 at 7. Plaintiff was read his Miranda rights and he and his father were questioned on May 27, 2018. ECF No. 19 at 8-9. Plaintiff's father admitted to taking the wood. Id.; ECF No. 1 at 9. The church expressed they did not want to pursue charges. ECF No. 1 at 9; ECF No. 17 at 8-9, 12. On June 1, 2018, Defendant Barrow requested a supplemental report with more details, and the investigator provided a report that included additional information about conversations that took place before and after the interview. ECF No. 1 at 9; ECF No. 17 at 12. The supplemental report details Plaintiff's discussion of his personal challenges and use of profanity before and during meeting with the investigator. ECF No. 17 at 12-13. No charges were filed. Id. at 5, 7.
Plaintiff was fired from his role as a police officer. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Barrow used his position as mayor to fire Plaintiff “without due process,” while Defendant Barrow was also a Franklin County detective due to the firewood-related incident and the preceding incident at the dental office. ECF No. 1 at 8-10.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations and any reasonable inference to be drawn from them, but legal conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555.
A district court must grant summary judgment “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); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Barnes v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 934 F.3d 901, 906 (9th Cir. 2019). “A fact is ‘material' only if it might affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute is ‘genuine' only if a reasonable trier of fact could resolve the issue in the non-movant's favor.” Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,...
To continue reading
Request your trial