White v. Goforth

• Decision Date: 18 May 2023
• Docket Number: 22-5409
• Parties: BAILEY WHITE, as Administrator of the Estate of Shandle Marie Riley, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACOB GOFORTH, in his individual and official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Hamilton County Government, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

1

BAILEY WHITE, as Administrator of the Estate of Shandle Marie Riley, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACOB GOFORTH, in his individual and official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Hamilton County Government, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-5409

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

May 18, 2023

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Before: McKEAGUE, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

LARSEN, Circuit Judge

On a winter night in 2019, Hamilton County Sheriff's Deputy Jacob Goforth received an unusual phone call from fellow on-duty officer, Daniel Wilkey. Wilkey, whom Goforth knew to be a preacher outside of work, asked Goforth to witness a baptism at a nearby lake. Although surprised, Goforth agreed assuming that Wilkey was baptizing someone he knew from church. He wasn't. Unbeknownst to Goforth, Wilkey had stopped Shandle Riley earlier that evening and found her in possession of marijuana. Wilkey told Riley that if she agreed to let him baptize her, he would issue her a citation and not take her to jail. She agreed and followed Wilkey in her car to a nearby lake. When Goforth arrived, he saw what appeared to be a consensual, if improper, situation. Wilkey proceeded to baptize Riley, while Goforth filmed on his cellphone. Critically, however, Goforth never learned of Wilkey's improper quid pro quo. Riley sued Goforth under 42 U.S.C § 1983, claiming that he was liable for failing to intervene in Wilkey's violation of her First and Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied Goforth qualified immunity as to those claims. We REVERSE.

I.

In the evening hours of February 6, 2019, Hamilton County Sheriff's Deputy Jacob Goforth received a call in his squad car from fellow officer, Daniel Wilkey.^[1] Wilkey, whom Goforth knew to be a preacher outside of work, asked Goforth to drive to a boat launch on Soddy Lake to witness a baptism. Goforth was, understandably, taken aback: "[W]hen [Wilkey] first said it, it didn't really sink in what he'd just said, so I asked him to clarify, and he told me again." Goforth assumed that Wilkey was planning to baptize someone he knew from his church. Arriving at the boat launch, Goforth saw Wilkey's parked patrol car, which was blocked in by a civilian car. He saw Wilkey and a woman "talking, [and] joking around." Two towels were "sitting on the hood" of one of the cars. Goforth asked Wilkey, "Hey, what exactly are you doing here? Because it looks like you're, you know, about to baptize this woman." Wilkey confirmed that was the plan. Goforth made a comment about how cold it was and said something like: "Are you sure about this?" or "I don't know about this."

Wilkey introduced Goforth to the woman, Shandle Riley,^[2] and told Goforth that Riley "wanted to be baptized." In getting ready to enter the lake, Wilkey told Riley that he was going to take his uniform off but asked Riley to keep her clothes on. Wilkey removed all his clothing except his compression shorts and t-shirt. Goforth learned, "right before [Wilkey] went to baptize" Riley, that Wilkey had issued her a citation earlier that night. Wilkey and Riley entered the water, and Wilkey baptized Riley, holding one hand on her back and the other on her front, and quickly submerging her in the lake. Goforth filmed the incident on his cellphone.

In his deposition, Goforth was asked why he didn't report Wilkey or stop him from baptizing Riley. Goforth offered two reasons. First, "Riley seemed like she wanted this to take place. She was very vocal about it." Goforth "thought she was a willing participant and wanted to be baptize[d] by Wilkey, who [he] underst[ood] [was] a preacher outside of work." Second, "[w]hile [Goforth] found it unusual what he was doing, the setting and the time, and especially the season that he was doing it in, [he] didn't find it to be wrong per se." When asked why he filmed the incident, Goforth explained, "I filmed it because I wanted to ensure that Ms. Riley wasn't going to allege some kind of sexual misconduct. Because obviously I know what a baptism entails. I understand where hands are going to be, things like that. So I decided I'm going to film this in case she tries to say that, you know, X, Y, and Z happened."

Unbeknownst to Goforth, the following events had transpired earlier in the evening. After leaving work, Riley had driven to her ex-mother-in-law's house, stopping first at a gas station. When she left the gas station, Wilkey followed her in his patrol car. He stopped Riley in the driveway of her ex-mother-in-law's house. Wilkey approached the vehicle and asked what Riley had in the car. She admitted that "[t]here was a marijuana roach in [her] cigarette pack." Wilkey had Riley exit the car. He then searched Riley and her car, finding only the marijuana mentioned by Riley.

Somehow, Wilkey and Riley began discussing religion. Riley testified, "I don't know how, when and where, he asked me if I'd been baptized." Wilkey told Riley that if she "got baptized he'd give [her] a citation and [she] could go about [her] business, because God was talking to him." He told Riley that if she "let him baptize [her], he wouldn't take [her] to jail." He also told her that he would go to court and speak on her behalf if she agreed to be baptized. Riley testified that she "would much rather get baptized in freezing cold water than go to" jail. In addition, she testified that she "felt like [she] had no choice but go to Soddy Lake and do the baptism. [She] didn't want to go to jail." At the same time, Riley said that she went along with the baptism because she "really thought he was a God-fearing, church-like man who saw something, like, in me, that God talked to him" and "it felt good to believe that for a minute."

Wilkey told Riley to go into her ex-mother-in-law's house to get towels for the baptism. After Riley got the towels, Wilkey issued her a citation for possessing marijuana. Wilkey then told Riley to follow him in her car. She proceeded to follow Wilkey to a boat launch about ten minutes away. When asked whether Wilkey gave her the option not to follow him, Riley responded, "[I]t wasn't by gunpoint . . . or anything," and "I'm a grown woman and I know I didn't have to do it." Wikey then baptized Riley, as described above.

After exiting the lake, Wilkey and Riley briefly hugged. When asked why she hugged Wilkey, Riley said that she "was just trying to get the heck out of there." Riley also testified that Goforth smirked at her and that it became apparent that the baptism "had nothing to do with God" or "with saving" her. Rather, "[i]t had something to do with power and control." Riley testified that she left immediately after hugging Wilkey, though a dashcam video indicates that she stayed for a few minutes. From Goforth's view, "Upon emerging from the lake after the baptism, [Riley] hugged Daniel Wilkey. We then walked up the ramp to the cars where I heard her laughing and talking with Wilkey. She also said thank you to him." Riley departed, while Goforth and Wilkey continued talking.

Riley sued Hamilton County, Wilkey, and Goforth in state court, raising numerous federal and state-law claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court. Goforth moved for summary judgment on all the claims against him. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Pertinent to this appeal, the court denied qualified immunity to Goforth on Riley's § 1983 claims for violating her First and Fourth Amendment rights. The claims against Wilkey and the County remain pending.

II.

We review the district court's summary judgment decision and its denial of qualified immunity de novo. Franklin Am. Mortg. Co. v. Univ. Nat'l Bank of Lawrence, 910 F.3d 270, 275 (6th Cir. 2018); Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmovant, there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Franklin Am. Mortg., 910 F.3d at 275 (citations omitted). "[A] defendant challenging the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds must be willing to concede the most favorable view of the facts to the plaintiff for purposes of the appeal." Hopper v. Plummer, 887 F.3d 744, 757 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

"[Q]ualified immunity prevents government officials from being held liable if (1) the officers did not violate any constitutional guarantees or (2) the guarantee, even if violated, was not 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged misconduct." Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights, 858 F.3d 988, 992 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)). The court must grant qualified immunity if either prong is satisfied. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 241-42. An officer has not "violated a clearly established right unless the right's contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was violating it.'" Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1153 (2018) (quoting Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778-79 (2014)). Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the "plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the defendants are not entitled to" it. Johnson v. Moseley, 790 F.3d 649, 653 (6th Cir. 2015).

Riley does not contend that Goforth personally violated her constitutional rights. Instead, she seeks to hold Goforth liable for failing to intervene in two alleged constitutional violations committed by Wilkey-an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and a coerced baptism in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Successful...