Shinaberry v. Town of Murfreesboro
Decision Date | 23 October 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 2:17-CV-7-D,2:17-CV-7-D |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
Parties | TERRY LEE SHINABERRY, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF MURFREESBORO, N.C., BOBBIE J. BARMER, HERTFORD COUNTY, N.C., MICHAEL P. HINTON, REVELLE & LEE, LLP, GUILFORD COUNTY, N.C., HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, JOANN JONES, and HERTFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants. |
TERRY LEE SHINABERRY, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF MURFREESBORO, N.C., BOBBIE J. BARMER, HERTFORD COUNTY, N.C.,
MICHAEL P. HINTON, REVELLE & LEE, LLP, GUILFORD COUNTY, N.C., HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOANN JONES, and HERTFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants.
No. 2:17-CV-7-D
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION
October 23, 2019
ORDER
On October 17, 2017, Terry Lee Shinaberry ("Shinaberry" or "plaintiff") filed an amended complaint against the Town of Murfreesboro, North Carolina ("Town"); Bobbie J. Hayden ("Hayden"), an animal control officer with the Hertford County Sheriff's office; the County of Hertford, North Carolina ("the County"); Michael P. Hinton ("Hinton"), an attorney who purportedly represented the Town; Revelle & Lee, LLP ("Firm"), a law firm which employed Hinton; the Humane Society of the United States ("HSUS"); and JoAnn Jones ("Jones"; collectively, "defendants"), an employee of the Hertford County Sheriff's office. See Am. Compl. [D.E. 56] ¶¶ 2-9; Answer [D.E. 59] ¶¶ 2-9. On April 16, 2018, the court dismissed the Town, HSUS, and some of Shinaberry's claims [D.E. 67]. On July 15, 2019, defendants moved for summary judgment on Shinaberry's remaining claims [D.E. 90] and filed a statement of material facts [D.E. 91], an appendix [D.E. 92], and a memorandum in support [D.E. 93]. On July 29, 2019, Shinaberry
Page 2
responded in opposition [D.E. 94]. On August 12, 2019, defendants replied [D.E. 95]. As explained below, the court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Shinaberry lives near Murfreesboro, North Carolina, in a double-wide mobile home. See [D.E. 91] ¶¶ 1-2; Am. Compl. [D.E. 56] ¶ 16; Shinaberry Dep. [D.E. 92-4] 52.1 He is a long-time breeder of Australian Shepherds. See [D.E. 91] ¶ 1; Shinaberry Dep. [D.E. 92-4] 13-14. In March 2014, he owned approximately 67 adult dogs and 13 puppies. See id. ¶ 2; Shinaberry Dep. [D.E. 92-4] 112. Hayden was an animal control officer in the Hertford County Sheriff's Office. See [D.E. 91] ¶ 3; Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶ 2. Hinton was an attorney. See [D.E. 91] ¶ 5; Hinton Dep. [D.E. 92-9] 11-12; Revelle Aff. [D.E. 92-2] ¶ 5. Revelle was an attorney in the same law firm as Hinton and was the County Attorney. See Revelle Aff. [D.E. 92-2] ¶¶ 3, 5.
Page 3
On February 16, 2014, Hertford County Animal Control received a complaint about a puppy that Shinaberry had sold. See Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶ 4. The complaint noted the large number of dogs at Shinaberry's residence. See id. It also noted that the dogs did not appear to receive proper care, that there was no shelter on Shinaberry's property for the dogs, and that the purchased puppy was in poor condition. See id. On or about March 20, 2014, Hayden went to Shinaberry's residence and found that the dogs had terrible living conditions. See id. ¶ 5. Many dogs appeared thin and malnourished, housing was inadequate, and the dogs fought over food. See id. Shinaberry could not produce any certificates that the dogs had received rabies vaccinations. See id. Hertford County Animal Control continued to receive more complaints about the dogs after this visit. See id. ¶ 6.
On March 21, 2014, Hayden and Hinton met with Shinaberry to discuss his dogs after Shinaberry had appeared in court on criminal animal cruelty charges. See [D.E. 91-2] ¶ 6; Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶ 8.2 Shinaberry signed a Voluntary Transfer of Ownership of Animals document on the same day without consulting an attorney. See [D.E. 91-2] ¶ 7; Revelle Aff. [D.E. 92-2] ¶ 5; Hinton Dep. [D.E. 92-9] 56-58; Ex. A, Revelle Aff. [D.E. 92-2] 6. Although Hinton stated that Hertford County might not file a civil action concerning Shinaberry's dogs if Shinaberry signed this document, neither Hinton nor Hayden discussed Shinaberry's pending criminal charges. See Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶ 8; Hayden Dep. [D.E. 94-5] 87.
On March 24, 2014, Hayden and HSUS, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("SPCA") of the Triad, the SPCA of Norfolk, Virginia, and the SPCA of Virginia Beach went to Shinaberry's home to remove the dogs that Shinaberry had agreed to surrender. See [D.E. 91] ¶¶
Page 4
8-9; Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶ 10. Although Shinaberry passed approximately ten dogs over his fence, he refused to surrender more dogs even though he had voluntarily agreed to surrender all but five of his dogs. See [D.E. 91] ¶¶ 9-10; Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶¶ 10-11. A volunteer veterinarian examined the ten dogs at the site and found what she perceived to be "signs of infection, missing body parts, and trauma." Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶ 11; see Hayden Dep. [D.E. 94-3] 45-46, 55-56. Hayden obtained a search warrant to find neglected or abused dogs at Shinaberry's home based on the poor condition of the ten dogs that Shinaberry had surrendered voluntarily. See [D.E. 91] ¶ 11; Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶ 12; Ex. D, Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] 46-48.
On April 28, 2014, Hayden obtained ten warrants for Shinaberry's arrest on charges of misdemeanor cruelty to animals relating to the ten dogs that Shinaberry had surrendered on March 21, 2014. See [D.E. 91] ¶ 12; Hayden Aff. [D.E. 92-1] ¶ 14. On September 24, 2014, the Hertford County District Attorney's Office dismissed the charges because of insufficient evidence. See [D.E. 91] ¶¶ 13-14; Am. Compl. [D.E. 56] ¶ 37; Ex. 4, Howard Dep. [D.E. 92-3] 37-43.
Summary judgment is appropriate when, after reviewing the record as a whole, the court determines that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment must initially demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact or the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party may not rest on the allegations or denials in its pleading, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49, but "must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (emphasis and
Page 5
quotation omitted). A trial court reviewing a motion for summary judgment should determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. In making this determination, the court must view the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).
A genuine issue of material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of plaintiff's position [is] insufficient . . . ." Id. at 252; see Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir. 1985) ("The nonmoving party, however, cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another."). Only factual disputes that affect the outcome under substantive law properly preclude summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment requires the court to consider Shinaberry's state law claims, and the parties agree that North Carolina law applies to those claims. Accordingly, this court must predict how the Supreme Court of North Carolina would rule on any disputed state law issues. See Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Ben Arnold-Sunbelt Beverage Co. of S.C., 433 F.3d 365, 369 (4th Cir. 2005). In doing so, the court must look first to opinions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. See id.; Stahle v. CTS Corp., 817 F.3d 96, 100 (4th Cir. 2016). If there are no governing opinions from that court, this court may consider the opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, treatises, and "the practices of other states." Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 433 F.3d at 369 (quotation omitted).3 In predicting how the highest court of a state would address an issue, this court must "follow the decision of an intermediate state appellate court unless there [are] persuasive data
Page 6
that the highest court would decide differently." Toloczko, 728 F.3d at 398 (quotation omitted); see Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 630 & n.3 (1988). Moreover, in predicting how the highest court of a state would address an issue, this court "should not create or expand a [s]tate's public policy." Time Warner Entm't-Advance/Newhouse P'ship v. Carteret-Craven Elec. Membership Corp., 506 F.3d 304, 314 (4th Cir. 2007) (alteration and quotation omitted); see Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3, 4 (1975) (per curiam); Wade v. Danek Med., Inc., 182 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 1999).
In his first claim for relief, Shinaberry alleges that Hayden and the County wrongfully seized his dogs without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Am. Compl. [D.E. 56] ¶¶ 47-52. Defendants move for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that "protects law enforcement officers against lawsuits seeking money damages from them in their individual capacity." Bostic v. Rodriguez, 667 F. Supp. 2d 591, 605 (E.D.N.C. 2009). In analyzing qualified immunity, the court must ask two questions. See, e.g., Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009); Doe ex rel. Johnson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 597 F.3d 163, 169 (4th Cir. 2010); Unus v. Kane, 565 F.3d 103, 123 & n.24 (4th Cir. 2009); Miller v. Prince George's Cty., 475 F.3d 621, 626-27 (4th Cir. 2007). First, the court must determine "whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. Second, the court must determine "whether the right at issue was clearly established at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial