Rudd v. City of Norton Shores

• Decision Date: 06 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-1226,19-1226
• Citation: 977 F.3d 503
• Parties: Daniel William RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTON SHORES, MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

977 F.3d 503

Daniel William RUDD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CITY OF NORTON SHORES, MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-1226

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided and Filed: October 6, 2020

ON BRIEF: Philip L. Ellison, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC, Hemlock, Michigan, for Appellant. Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellees City of Norton Shores, Gary Nelund, Daniel Shaw, Matthew Rhyndress, Michael Wassilewski,Mark Meyers, Douglas Mark Hughes, William Hughes PLLC, and Jon Gale. Andrew J. Jurgensen, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee Chris McIntire. Melissa Meyers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, in pro per. Michelle M. McLean, BOLHOUSE, HOFSTEE & MCLEAN PC, Grandville, Michigan, for Appellees Joel Baar, Bolhouse, Baar & Hofstee PC, and in pro per. Daniel William Rudd, Spring Lake, Michigan, pro se.

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, DONALD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

This case illustrates well the standard of review that applies at a lawsuit's pleading stage. The City of Norton Shores, a town of around 24,000, sits on the shores of Lake Michigan. Daniel Rudd has lived in or near the city for most of his life. During a child-custody dispute, Rudd alleges that his ex-wife abducted their sons with assistance from her attorney. Rudd called the police but alleges that they refused to help him find his sons because his ex-wife's attorney is married to the city manager. Rudd later filed an official complaint with the police department criticizing the city manager and officers involved in this incident. This complaint allegedly ignited a conspiracy to retaliate against him because of his criticisms—one that included an effort to get him jailed for his speech. The evidence may confirm the allegations in his pro se complaint. Or it may resoundingly disprove them. But because we must accept his allegations as true, we partially reverse the dismissal of Rudd's First Amendment claim. Rudd effectively alleges that the defendants sought to punish him for a modern-day "seditious libel."

I

A

Rudd makes four key factual allegations. We reiterate at the outset that Rudd's allegations are just that: allegations. We must accept them as true at this pleading stage.

1. The Abduction . In July 2013, Rudd was in the midst of a contentious child-custody dispute with his ex-wife. Compl., R.1, PageID#5. Rudd and his ex-wife's own family grew concerned about the safety of his young sons. Id. At that time, the complaint asserts, his ex-wife was in a volatile relationship with her current husband, a man who was armed and had a history of domestic violence. Compl., Ex. A, R.1-1, PageID#31. Her husband had also recently threatened Rudd and his sons. Id. Around July 21, after "behaving erratically for several days," his ex-wife "absconded with the children" and hid "them away from [Rudd] and all of her immediate family members" in violation of Michigan law. Compl., R.1, PageID#5–6. During this abduction, Rudd alleges, his ex-wife began to send him "extortionate" text messages. Id. , PageID#6. He concluded that Melissa Meyers, her attorney, was helping with the texts because his ex-wife was demanding "specific legal concessions" in the custody dispute before she would return their sons. Id.

Throughout this abduction, Rudd called the Norton Shores Police Department several times. He explained his concerns about his sons’ welfare because of his ex-wife's volatile family situation and requested police assistance in finding them. Id. , PageID#5–6. At some point, Rudd also began telling the police that Ms. Meyers was assisting his ex-wife in hiding his sons and asked them to speak to her. Compl., Ex. A, R.1-1, PageID#32. He noted that his ex-wife had previously taken their sons to the Meyers home and that they might currently be there. Id.

The complaint asserts that Chief of Police Daniel Shaw and Sergeant Matthew Rhyndress had a relationship with Ms. Meyers because she was married to City Manager Mark Meyers and was also Rhyndress's attorney. Compl, R.1, PageID#3, 6. Mark Meyers allegedly conspired with Shaw and Rhyndress to ensure that Rudd received no help finding his sons. Id. , PageID#7; Compl., Ex. A, R.1-1, PageID#32–33. Rhyndress later detained Rudd without cause and told him that the police "would not be investigating anything or providing any assistance." Compl., R.1, PageID#7. When Rudd asked why, Rhyndress allegedly threatened to arrest him for trespassing. Id. Rudd's complaint suggests that he was parked on the public street near the Meyers home during this encounter. Id. , PageID#8; Compl., Ex. A, R.1-1, PageID#32–33.

The abduction continued "until a different police agency intervened." Compl., R.1, PageID#7. That agency "facilitated the safe return of [Rudd's] children." Id. After the abduction, the court overseeing the custody dispute restricted the parenting time for Rudd's ex-wife. Id.

2. Personal Protection Order . Over the next five months, Rudd alleges, Ms. Meyers "overwhelmed" his custody case with a "barrage of false allegations" that he had been "stalking and harassing her." Id. The complaint claims that several Norton Shores officials helped Meyers obtain an ex parte personal protection order as "leverage" in the custody case. Id. Police Chief Shaw allegedly authorized officers to illegally disclose Rudd's information on the Law Enforcement Information Network ("LEIN") to Mr. Meyers in order to help Ms. Meyers falsely portray Rudd as dangerous. Id. , PageID#8–9. The complaint adds that Sergeant Rhyndress and Officer Michael Wassilewski falsified reports by omitting mention of the risks that Rudd's sons faced and concealing Ms. Meyers's role. Id. , PageID#8. Based on the allegedly false and ex parte information, a six-month personal protection order was issued against Rudd. Id. , PageID#9.

Rudd moved to terminate this order, and the court set the motion for a hearing in November 2013. Id. Before the hearing, Ms. Meyers filed a motion in the child-custody case asking the state court to order an evaluation by a neutral evaluator. Id. The court addressed both motions together. Id. It allegedly decided that the protection order should terminate early but remain in place "for a few weeks" while the parties litigated Ms. Meyers's custody-evaluation motion. Id. The court later ordered that evaluation to occur. Id. , PageID#10.

Over the next two months, Ms. Meyers moved to find Rudd in criminal contempt for allegedly violating the protection order and requested sanctions on the ground that he filed his motion to terminate that order simply to harass her. Id. The court denied these motions because Rudd had received "some relief" when the court "shorten[ed] the term of the [order's] existence." Id. Rudd's complaint alleges that the protection order terminated in early 2014. Id. , PageID#15.

Rudd later prevailed in the custody case. After a six-month inquiry, the evaluator found that Rudd "possess[ed] deep love and care for his children" and that the evidence supported his concerns about his sons’ safety. Id. , PageID#11. Discussing the situation between Rudd's ex-wife and her husband, the evaluator noted: "Although no severe or lethal violence has occurred in this case, the risk factors were present." Id. At some point, Michelle McLean—a partner at Melissa Meyers's law firm, Bolhouse, Baar & Hofstee, P.C. (the "Bolhouse Firm")—began representing Rudd's ex-wife. Id. , PageID#4, 12. Neither McLean nor Rudd's ex-wife challenged these findings. Id. , PageID#11–12. Rudd's ex-wife allegedly agreed with the concerns, acknowledging that her husband's "temper gets out of control sometimes" when he is drinking. Id. , PageID#11. In August 2014, Rudd received sole custody of his sons. Id. , PageID#12.

3. Rudd's Citizen Complaint . In 2015, Norton Shores hired a new chief of police, Jon Gale. Id. Rudd thought that Gale might "objectively" address his concerns with the way that the police had handled his sons’ abduction. Id. On July 20, 2015, he filed an official complaint with the Norton Shores Police Department. Id. He noted that he had never before had negative encounters with the police or received a warning of criminal activity. Compl., Ex. A, R.1-1, PageID#31. He then explained how he had requested help with the abduction due to the domestic-violence risks. Id. Yet Rudd suggested that the police refused to help him in retaliation for his accusations against Ms. Meyers. Id. , PageID#32. This complaint also asserted that the former chief had disclosed his information on the LEIN database to help Ms. Meyers's litigation. Id. , PageID#33. Rudd requested an inquiry. Compl., R.1, PageID#13. Police Chief Gale later told Rudd that he would investigate any internal policy violations and have an officer from the Michigan State Police investigate the LEIN allegation. Id. , PageID#13–14.

Instead, Rudd alleges, Gale immediately gave his complaint to Mark and Melissa Meyers and former Police Chief Shaw—a violation of a confidentiality rule designed to prevent the chilling of citizen complaints. Id. , PageID#14. Rudd asserts that Gale never internally investigated the complaint. Id. And, according to Rudd, Gale set up a sham outside investigation, asking Michigan State Police Lieutenant Chris McIntire, a trusted colleague, to "go through the motions of ‘investigating’ the complaint without any documentation or scrutiny." Id.

4. Alleged Retaliation . Rudd claims that his citizen complaint triggered retaliatory actions. Ms. Meyers began to threaten Rudd using the allegedly expired protection order. Id. , PageID#14–15. In late July 2015, Rudd was coaching his sons’ soccer team at a crowded tournament. Id. Ms. Meyers was at this tournament, but Rudd claims he never saw her. Id. , PageID#15. Eight days after Rudd filed his citizen complaint, Meyers sent Rudd's counsel an email asserting that Rudd violated the expired protection order because he continued to coach his sons’ team ...