Vanlandingham v. City of Abbeville
| Decision Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Act. No. 1:19cv500-ECM |
| Citation | 483 F.Supp.3d 1174 |
| Parties | Noel VANLANDINGHAM, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF ABBEVILLE, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Dustin Judd Fowler, Stephen Talmadge Etheredge, Sr., Buntin, Etheredge & Fowler, LLC, Dothan, AL, Heather Newsom Leonard, Heather Leonard, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.
James Hillary Pike, Shealy, Pike, Hornsby and Freeman, Dothan, AL, for Defendants.
Now pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss (doc. 47) filed by the City of Abbeville, Alabama ("the City") and Billy Helms, Terry Allums, Brendt Murphy, Dorothy L. Baker, Rena' Cosby, and Harold Robison, Jr. ("the individual Defendants").
The Plaintiff, Noel Vanlandingham ("Vanlandingham"), originally filed a verified complaint in the Circuit Court of Henry County, Alabama, bringing claims against the City. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of federal question subject-matter jurisdiction. In response to this Court's ruling on a previous motion to dismiss, and with leave of court, Vanlandingham filed an amended verified complaint in November 2019. (Doc. 22). Vanlandingham filed a second amended verified complaint with leave of court on June 26, 2020. In that complaint, Vanlandingham added the individual Defendants. Although Vanlandingham brings a single count, alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that count includes a retaliation theory based on the suspension of Vanlandingham from employment for his speech and a separate theory of retaliation through termination of his employment for the filing of this lawsuit. (Doc. 44 at 13).
For reasons to be discussed, the motion to dismiss is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff, Vanlandingham, at all times relevant to this case, was the Chief of the City of Abbeville Municipal Police Department.
On March 25, 2019 a deputy sheriff with the Henry County Sheriff's office made a stop of a vehicle driven by Amanda Mills ("Mills") and occupied by Anthony Balog. Mills videoed the actions of the deputy sheriff during the stop and subsequent arrest and later posted the video on Face Book. (Doc. 44 ¶¶23-24). As a result, the Henry County Sheriff's Office received hundreds of telephone calls critical of the sheriff deputy's actions. Mills' vehicle was also impounded pursuant to her arrest and the vehicle contained some personal belongings.
On April 19, 2019, Mills approached Vanlandingham in the Municipal Court building in Abbeville, Alabama and asked to speak to him, videoing their conversation. Mills spoke to Vanlandingham in his office while he was wearing his badge. She said that she was having trouble retrieving her belongings from the vehicle which had been impounded as a result of her arrest. Vanlandingham advised her to talk to her attorney to make inquiry about retrieving her personal belongings. (Id. ¶39).
(Doc. 48-3 at 12).1
On May 13, 2019, Vanlandingham was called to the Mayor's office. Defendant Helms asked him about a complaint which had been presented to the City Council. Vanlandingham was told that the complaint had been presented during executive session and so the nature of it could not be disclosed. Vanlandingham alleges, therefore, that he was unable to respond to the complaint. (Doc. 44 ¶49).
On May 15, 2019, Helms advised Vanlandingham in a letter that a complaint against him regarding an audio recording was being placed on the agenda of the City Council. (Id. ¶59). On May 20, 2019, Helms and the Abbeville City Council went into executive session where they discussed the complaint about Vanlandingham outside of his presence and the presence of Vanlandingham's legal counsel. (Id. ¶61). The City Council voted on and approved a punishment of suspension of Vanlandingham without pay for ten work days for failing to comply with a directive that he "get along with" the Henry County Sheriff. (Id. ¶62). Vanlandingham has alleged in his second amended verified complaint that the City of Abbeville acts through its Mayor and Commissioners, that the City Council voted to suspend Vanlandingham. (Doc. 44 ¶¶3, 62). The second amended verified complaint also alleges that Vanlandingham did not directly or indirectly violate any prior legal directive of his superiors. (Id. ¶66).
The City's Personnel Policy provides that an employee may be suspended from duty without pay for a period not to exceed ten days after notice and a departmental hearing. (Id. ¶63).
By letter dated May 23, 2019, Helms advised Vanlandingham that the ten-day suspension was appropriate (Doc. 44 ¶69). Vanlandingham appealed the suspension. (Id. ¶70). On June 3, 2019, the City Council met in executive session, and contended that the meeting was the appeal hearing. (Id. ¶71). The suspension was upheld. (Id. ¶78).
Vanlandingham filed suit on June 14, 2019. While the City's motion to dismiss his verified amended complaint was pending, on April 6, 2020, the City Council voted to terminate Vanlandingham's employment. (Id. ¶86). Vanlandingham alleges that he had supporters who came to the City Council meeting but the City Council did not allow them to speak, or even attend the meeting, citing social-distancing requirements and limits on gatherings imposed on April 4, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. ¶88). Vanlandingham alleges that the City Council would not continue the issue of his termination to a later date. (Id. at ¶88). Vanlandingham alleges that he was terminated because of the allegations he is pursuing in this lawsuit. (Id. ¶90).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8: "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "To survive a 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U. S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).
"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The plausibility standard requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal , 556 U. S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Conclusory allegations that are merely "conceivable" and fail to rise "above the speculative level" are insufficient to meet the plausibility standard. Twombly , 550 U. S. at 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. This pleading standard "does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Indeed, "[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ " Id.
The motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of all claims. The Court will separately address the claims against the City and then the individual Defendants.
This Court previously has addressed a motion to dismiss as to the suspension aspect of Vanlandingham's claim against the City and has concluded that Vanlandingham has stated a plausible First Amendment claim. (Doc. 34). The Court will not revisit the City's previously raised arguments, or the Court's analysis, again here. The Court notes, however, that the City has raised a new ground for dismissal; namely, that Vanlandingham has failed to allege a basis for municipal liability in this case because there can be no deliberate indifference if a constitutional right is not clearly established. (Doc. 48 at 55) (citing, among other cases, Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home , 627 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir. 2010) ).
Upon review of the second amended verified complaint, it is apparent that Vanlandingham is proceeding on a different municipal liability theory than that identified by the City. A plaintiff can establish municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in either one of two ways: (1) by showing that his alleged constitutional injury was caused by "a municipal official who has final policymaking authority in a certain area of the city's business," or (2) by establishing "a widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or use with the force of law." Brown v. City of Ft. Lauderdale , 923 F.2d 1474, 1480-81 (11th Cir. 1991) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial