Womack v. Conley
| Decision Date | 08 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-00039-TBR |
| Parties | DAX R. WOMACK Plaintiff v. MATT CONLEY; STEPHANIE CONLEY; CONNIE KNIGHT; ROBERT SHOULTZ; JASON KIRK; SCOTT INGRAM; DAVID CRAFTON; Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Connie Knight's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 83.) Plaintiff has responded. (Docket No. 98.) Defendant Knight has replied. (Docket No. 109.) This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendant Knight's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendants, David Crafton and Scott Ingram, also move for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 86.) Plaintiff has responded. (Docket No. 98.) Defendants Crafton and Ingram have replied. (Docket No. 110.) This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendants David Crafton and Scott Ingram's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendants, Kentucky State Police Captain Robert Shoultz and Kentucky State Police Sergeant Jason Kirk, move for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 87.) Plaintiff has responded. (Docket No. 98.) Defendants Shoultz and Kirk have replied. (Docket No. 112.) This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendants Shoultz and Kirk's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendant Matt Conley moves for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 89.) Plaintiff has responded. (Docket No. 98.) Defendant Matt Conley has replied. (Docket No. 108.) This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendant Matt Conley's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendant Stephanie Conley moves for Summary Judgment on the remaining state law claim of defamation. (Docket No. 90.) Plaintiff has responded. (Docket No. 98.) Defendant Stephanie Conley has replied. (Docket No. 111.) This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendant Stephanie Conley's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The following are the background facts concerning this matter. Since this is a summary judgment motion, the Court resolves all ambiguities and draws all reasonable inferences against the moving parties. If there is a genuine dispute of material fact, theCourt will note it. If one of the parties assert a particular fact, and the opposing parties don't dispute it, the Court has assumed there is no genuine dispute as to that fact.
Dax R. Womack ("Plaintiff") filed the Complaint in this action on April 1, 2011. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff's claims all arise out of an alleged investigation by the Kentucky State Police, Plaintiff's subsequent arrest and trial, and alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence by the Defendants. As confirmed by Plaintiff's proposed jury instructions, (Docket No. 168), and Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order at Docket No. 179, (Docket No. 181), the following claims remain:
A brief overview is appropriate. Defendants assert that Connie Knight, the mother of a client Plaintiff was defending and who occasionally met with Plaintiff during this representation, came to the police claiming that Plaintiff was attempting to use her to buy drugs. Law enforcement equipped her with audio and video equipment in order to verify and investigate these claims. Defendants utilized a "reverse-buy"1 operation where Knight would be provided with the drugs allegedly requested by Plaintiff and Knight was instructed to go into Plaintiff's office while being wired with both audio and video. Upon her entrance into the office, the parties' stories significantly diverge.
Defendants claim that Knight gave Plaintiff the drugs, which he then put in his middle desk drawer. On the other hand, Plaintiff claims that the drugs were thrown on his desk while his back was turned at the instruction of Defendants and in furtherance of a conspiracy against him.2 Immediately thereafter, two Defendants—Matt Conley and Scott Ingram—entered the office and a peaceful arrest occurred. The Court has reviewed the video and audio of the incident and notes it does not conclusively supporteither side's story. Ultimately, Plaintiff was charged with both a felony and a misdemeanor offense.
This action involves several Defendants: Matt Conley, Robert Shoultz, Jason Kirk, Scott Ingram, David Crafton, Connie Knight, and Stephanie Conley. Other than Stephanie Conley, Plaintiff claims all of these Defendants were involved in a conspiracy to frame him by sending Connie Knight into his office to plant narcotics. A brief description of each of these Defendants and their connection to this investigation is appropriate.
Matt Conley, a Kentucky State Police ("KSP") officer at Post 16, was primarily responsible for this investigation. Robert Shoultz has been Captain at Post 16 since September 2009. Jason Kirk was a Sergeant at Post 16 at the time of the alleged investigation into Plaintiff. Both Shoultz and Kirk were Conley's supervisors and frequently discussed and were kept abreast on this ongoing investigation
Connie Knight was the KSP's confidential informant in this investigation. She was also the mother of a defendant Plaintiff represented and appears to have been in semi-frequent contact with Plaintiff about her son's representation. She alleged that Plaintiff had, and was continuing to try, to use her to acquire illegal drugs under the guise that it was part of an effort to become a confidential informant for law enforcement. Essentially she claims Plaintiff led her to believe that the purchasing of these drugs was under the authority of law enforcement. Plaintiff denies that he used Knight to purchase drugs for his own use. Plaintiff asserts Defendants attempted to plant the drugs at Plaintiff's office and wrongfully prosecuted him.
Scott Ingram was a Deputy at Daviess County Sheriff's Department. David Crafton was a Deputy at Henderson County Sheriff's Department. Ingram and Crafton did not work for the KSP at the time of the investigation. Ingram was involved in the actual arrest of Plaintiff. Crafton was a contact point for Matt Conley to determine if Plaintiff had contacted the Sheriff's Department regarding Connie Knight.
Stephanie Conley is Matt Conley's wife. Based on her filing of a bar complaint and alleged conversations with one of Plaintiff's clients, Plaintiff has filed claims of defamation against her.
Although the investigation was done by the KSP, allegedly the initial information of Plaintiff's alleged drug involvement did not originate with the KSP. In March of 2010, an informant named "C.B." told Preston Herndon—a narcotics detective with the Henderson City Police Department—that Plaintiff was using Connie Knight to purchase drugs. (Docket No. 89, Page 1.) Herndon contacted KSP Post 16 about the case. C.B. and Knight also reached out to Conley at the KSP concerning the case.3 Ultimately, Conley invited Knight to come to KSP Post 16 and be interviewed. Knight came in to be interviewed.
Knight's story was that originally she asked Plaintiff if assisting law enforcement in making drug buys would help her son. In response, Plaintiff stated buying prescription medication for law enforcement was the "only hope she had in helping her son." (Docket No. 87-6, Page 7.) Knight stated she then purchased drugsfor Plaintiff under the impression she was doing it for law enforcement. As time went by, she became concerned she had been used to illegally purchase prescription narcotics. This concern is why she says she ultimately decided to report this behavior.
Conley states he did not initially believe these allegations.4 Nevertheless, he was required to investigate them. Conley contacted David Crafton, a Deputy at Henderson County Sheriff's Department, and was told no member of his agency had been in contact with Plaintiff. Conley also contacted Henderson County Commonwealth Attorney Bill Markwell and received permission to conduct a reverse narcotics drug investigation if necessary. Conley then called Knight and requested she come to KSP Post 16 to become a confidential informant.
On April 1, 2010, Connie Knight came to Post 16 and was interviewed by Kirk and Conley, and Kirk signed her on as a confidential informant.5 Conley reviewed the information that Knight had given before and her story had not changed. Knight was requested to contact Plaintiff and arrange a meeting. A meeting was set for April 8, 2010. When Plaintiff asked what the meeting was in reference to, Knight advised Plaintiff she wanted to try and assist law enforcement by making buys.
At the meeting on April 8, 2010, they discussed her son's case and the large amount of time he was facing. The possibility of Knight working for law enforcementto make buys in order to help her son came up toward the end of a long conversation. The audio transcript6 of the first meeting on April 8, 2010, states in relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial