Vanlandingham v. City of Abbeville, Civil Act. No. 1:19cv500-ECM

• Decision Date: 20 April 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Act. No. 1:19cv500-ECM
• Parties: Noel VANLANDINGHAM, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF ABBEVILLE, ALABAMA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

455 F.Supp.3d 1259

Noel VANLANDINGHAM, Plaintiff,

v.The CITY OF ABBEVILLE, ALABAMA, Defendant.

Civil Act. No. 1:19cv500-ECM

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

Signed April 20, 2020

Dustin Judd Fowler, Stephen Talmadge Etheredge, Sr., Buntin, Etheredge & Fowler, LLC, Dothan, AL, for Plaintiff.

James Hillary Pike, Shealy, Crum & Pike, P.C., Dothan, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

EMILY C. MARKS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Now pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss (doc. 26) filed by the City of Abbeville, Alabama ("the City") on January 8, 2020.

The Plaintiff, Noel Vanlandingham ("Vanlandingham"), originally filed a verified complaint in the Circuit Court of Henry County, Alabama. 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 bringing a state-law claim for breach of contract (count one) and federal law claims for violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (count two). (Doc. 22).

For reasons to be discussed, the motion to dismiss is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. FACTS

The motion to dismiss is supported by attachments to the City's motion; therefore, the Court first must address the information which it can consider in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and then will set out the relevant facts.

A. Information to be Considered in Ruling on the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

Although courts generally only consider the language of a complaint in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court may consider an extrinsic document if it is (1) central to the plaintiff's claim, and (2) its authenticity is not challenged. Speaker v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention , 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). The exception also may apply when a plaintiff refers to a document in its complaint, the document is central to its claim, its contents are not in dispute, and the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss. See Fin. Sec. Assur., Inc. v. Stephens, Inc. , 500 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating that because the document was attached to the motion to dismiss, there was notice that the district court might consider the document, and because it is referred to in the complaint, it is central to claim; therefore, its consideration comports with the requirements of notice pleading, and neither party challenges its authenticity).

The City has attached to its motion a recording of the meeting between Amanda Mills ("Mills") and Vanlandingham as well as a transcript of that recording. In his response to the motion to dismiss, Vanlandingham argues that the City relies on "extrinsic facts" which are more properly considered in the context of a motion for summary judgment, but does not contest the authenticity of the City's attachments. (Doc. 32 at 1). He also acknowledges that the amended complaint refers to the audio recording. (Doc. 32 at 2). The Court concludes, therefore, that it may consider the recording and the transcript of the recording in the context of a motion to dismiss. Fin. Sec. Assur., Inc. , 500 F.3d at 1284.

The City also asks the Court to disregard allegations of the verified amended complaint which are contradicted by the recording. Specifically, the verified amended complaint alleges that Mills secretly recorded a conversation with Vanlandingham, (doc. 22 at 2), but in the transcript of the recording Mills tells Vanlandingham she is recording him. (Doc. 27-4 at 37). When it comes to accepting as accurate the substance of an exhibit attached to a complaint, courts are to follow the same general pleading standards that apply under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so that when exhibits attached to a complaint contradict general and conclusory allegations of the pleading, the exhibits govern, and vice versa. Gill, as Next Friend of K.C.R. v. Judd , 941 F.3d 504, 514-15 (11th Cir. 2019). Therefore, the Court accepts the more specific statement of the recording transcript that Mills told Vanlandingham she was recording their conversation.

The City also has attached to its motion the City of Abbeville Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. The amended verified complaint refers to and quotes from this manual. (Doc. 22 at ¶¶ 9,10, 13, 24). Vanlandingham has not disputed the authenticity of the manual attached to the motion. See Fin. Sec. Assur., Inc. , 500 F.3d at 1284. Therefore, the Court will consider the manual. See Butler v. Cleburne Cty. Comm'n , 2012 WL 2357740, at *21 (N.D. Ala.) (stating "Plaintiff does not offer anything to dispute the authenticity, content, or relevance of the County Handbook excerpts filed by the defendants. Thus, the County Handbook excerpts may be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment."), report and recommendation adopted , 2012 WL 2357741 (N.D. Ala. 2012). The Court will, therefore, consider the portions of the manual attached to the motion to dismiss.

B. Facts Alleged in the Amended Verified Complaint and in Defendant's Attachments Referenced in the Complaint

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 Mills and occupied by a person identified only as Anthony. Mills videoed the actions of the deputy sheriff during the stop and subsequent arrest and later posted the video on Facebook. (Doc. 22 ¶4). As a result, the Henry County Sheriff's Office received hundreds of telephone calls critical of the sheriff's deputy's actions. Mills' vehicle was also impounded pursuant to her arrest.

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 relating to the vehicle. (Id. ¶7).

During the course of their conversation, Vanlandingham was critical of the Sheriff's Department's actions toward Mills. During their meeting, for example, the following exchange occurred

CHIEF VANLANDINGHAM: Now, personally my opinion, I would have went about that thing a whole lot different.

MS. MILLS: Right. So would we have, honestly.

CHIEF VANLANDINGHAM: I do believe -- and this is -- this is how I go about things. I'm going to talk to you respectfully and I'm going to explain why I'm doing stuff, and I'm going to explain why I'm asking for his driver's license. I'm going to tell you beforehand -- if I smell dope in your car and y'all won't be cooperative with me, I'm going to read you your rights right then.

MS. MILLS: That would have been perfect.

CHIEF VANLANDINGHAM: And then you're going to know, okay, we've stepped it up just a little notch and this is why he's doing this. That's -- that's just the way that we kind of do things.

MS. MILLS: Right. And that makes sense.

CHIEF VANLANDINGHAM: Because you have a – I mean, you do have a right to know what's going on.

(Doc. 27-4 at 12). Vanlandingham also told Mills, "as far as this not being able to get your property out, I might get my attorney to call up there and say why can't they get their property ... [b]ecause they have no right to keep you from getting your personal items out of the vehicle." (Doc. 27-4 at 20: 1-8).

On May 13, 2019, Vanlandingham was called to the Mayor's office. He was asked 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. 22 ¶12).

On May 15, 2019, the Mayor 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. ¶13). On May 20, 2019, the Mayor 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. ¶14). The City Council 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. ¶16). The amended verified complaint also alleges that Vanlandingham did not directly or indirectly violate any prior legal directive of his superiors. (Id. ¶31).

The City's Personnel Policy provides that an employee may be suspended from duty and pay for a period not to exceed ten days for cause after notice and a departmental hearing. (Id. ¶15). The policy also provides that the City reserves the right to make changes in either city policies or benefits at any time. (Doc. 27-1 at 4).

By letter dated May 23, 2019, the Mayor advised Vanlandingham that he was suspending him for ten days and that Vanlandingham had five days to appeal to the City Council. (Doc. 22 ¶19). An appeal hearing was held on June 3, 2019, and the suspension was upheld. (Id. ¶20).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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...