Woodard v. Town of Oakman

• Decision Date: 27 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 6:11–cv–00494–LSC.,6:11–cv–00494–LSC.
• Citation: 885 F.Supp.2d 1216
• Parties: Hubert E. WOODARD, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF OAKMAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

885 F.Supp.2d 1216

Hubert E. WOODARD, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.TOWN OF OAKMAN, et al., Defendants.

No. 6:11–cv–00494–LSC.

United States District Court,

N.D. Alabama,

Jasper Division.

July 27, 2012.

Donna Wesson Smalley, Donna Wesson Smalley, Attorney at Law, Jasper, AL, for Plaintiff.

Mallory M. Combest, Richard D. Whitaker, Terry A. Sides, Thomas S. Hale, Hale Sides LLC, Birmingham, AL, Horace V. O'Neal, Jr., Rocco J. Leo, Leo & O'Neal, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

L. SCOTT COOGLER, District Judge.

I. Introduction.

Plaintiffs Hubert E. Woodard, Jr., Jack Smith, and Ronnie Phillips filed the above-entitled action against the Town of Oakman, Joyce Todd, Leon Welch, and John Wilson in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama, on December 31, 2010, alleging violations of their Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“ § 1983”), as well as malicious prosecution, defamation, and wrongful termination under Alabama law. The action was removed to this Court on February 11, 2011 (Doc. 1), and Defendants moved to dismiss (Docs. 5, 6). In response to Defendants' motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.) The Court struck the Amended Complaint for failure to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (Doc. 15.)

After consultation with the Court and opposing counsel, Plaintiffs filed an opposed motion for leave to file a “Second Amended Complaint.” ¹ (Doc. 23.) Plaintiffs conceded their prior complaint “lacked sufficient recitation of facts to support the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment issues that were co-mingled with other claims which made it difficult for the parties to properly respond.” ( Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs also acknowledged the prior complaint “did not set forth the causes of action in a specific manner or with clarity to each claim.” ( Id. ¶ 5.) Defendants then filed “motions to dismiss,” which addressed the claims in the proposed “Second Amended Complaint” attached as an exhibit to Plaintiffs' motion. (Docs. 27, 28.) The Court again consulted with the parties and determined that it would grant Plaintiffs leave to file their proposed “Second Amended Complaint.” The Court informed the parties that it would construe Defendants' pending “motions to dismiss” as motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint after it was filed.

However, when Plaintiffs filed their “Second Amended Complaint,” they did not file the document reviewed by the Court and attached as an exhibit to their motion for leave. Instead, Plaintiffs “updat[ed] factual matter” (Doc. 59 ¶ 3) by adding two footnotes. The Court denied Defendants' motion to strike the amended complaint, but deemed the earlier-filed “motions to dismiss” as moot and informed Defendants they were free to file motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and incorporate previous arguments if they determined no further argument was necessary. (Docket Order, February 16, 2012.) In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants ² are liable for violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under § 1983; conspiracy in violation of § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985; violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.; as well as false arrest, outrage, and wrongful termination. Defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Docs. 70, 82) are currently before the Court.³ The issues raised in Defendants' motions have been fully briefed ⁴by the parties and are ripe for decision. Upon full consideration and for the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

II. Background.

Plaintiff Hubert Woodard was hired by the Police Department of the Town of Oakman, Alabama (“Oakman”), in October 2008 as a law enforcement officer. (Doc. 57 ¶ 10.) In or around September 2009, Hubert Woodard (“Chief Woodard”) was appointed Police Chief of Oakman by the Mayor and Town Council. ( Id.) At all times relevant to this action, Joyce Todd (“Mayor Todd”) was Mayor of Oakman and Leon Welch (“Magistrate Welch”) was magistrate for the Oakman Municipal Court. ( Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.)

According to Plaintiffs, Chief Woodard sought to remove one of his part time officers, Nancy Kirkland (“Kirkland”). ( Id. ¶ 14.) Although Chief Woodard's efforts were supported by several members of the Oakman City Council, Mayor Todd opposed Chief Woodard's actions because she was a personal friend of Kirkland. Plaintiffs contend that Mayor Todd publicly attacked the members of the City Council who supported Kirkland's removal. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Mayor Todd publicized negative information and documents about City Council member Patricia Blackwell, the sister of Plaintiff Jack Smith (“Smith”), also a City Council member. ( Id.)

Because the documents about Patricia Blackwell contained unredacted personal information, Chief Woodard investigated their disbursement. ( Id. ¶ 15.) Chief Woodard uncovered Mayor Todd's involvement in distributing the documents and disclosed that information to the City Council, “infuriating” Mayor Todd. ( Id.) When Mayor Todd tried to force Chief Woodard into keeping Kirkland on the police roster, he asked the City Council if he could meet with the City Attorney about Kirkland. ( Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs contend that Mayor Todd retaliated against Chief Woodard for his speech to the City Council and criticism of her actions by seeking to terminate his employment. ( Id.) She changed the locks on his office doors on July 15, 2010, and handed him a letter at a City Council meeting on July 19, 2010, which sought to place him on leave. ( Id.) Chief Woodard read Mayor Todd's letter out loud to the Council “along with other matters concerning the Town of Oakman.” ( Id.)

At some point,⁵ Chief Woodard was arrested for interference with governmental operations, disorderly conduct, and theft. ( Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs contend that Magistrate Welch directed Defendant John Wilson, a private citizen, to sign sham warrant complaints as “acting police chief” and issued the warrant in “retaliation for Woodard's speech and investigation of the Mayor.” ( Id.) In a footnote, Plaintiffs maintain that Wilson's name was “alleged to be forged” on “one of the warrant complaints,” but they do not indicate whether the name was actually forged, who made the allegations, or when the allegations were made. ( Id. ¶ 17 n. 1.) Regardless, Plaintiffs conclude that “Wilson knowingly served forged arrest warrants.” ( Id.)

Per Plaintiffs, Mayor Todd and Magistrate Welch exerted an “unusual degree of involvement” in day-to-day operations of the local court system and Police Department.( Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs contend that Mayor Todd and Magistrate Welch “facilitate[d] each other's wishes for complete political control over activities in Oakman.” ( Id.) Plaintiffs allege that Chief Woodard's arrest was effected without probable cause. ( Id. ¶ 17.) An announcement of Chief Woodard's arrest was published, with his photograph, in the local “Just Busted” newspaper. ( Id. ¶ 19.) Ultimately, Oakman abandoned the charges against Chief Woodard. ( Id. ¶ 22.)

Chief Woodard hired Plaintiff Ronnie Phillips (“Officer Phillips”) as a patrol officer in or around July 2009. ( Id. ¶ 11.) Officer Phillips made a traffic stop on May 1, 2010, and Kirkland was a passenger in that vehicle. ( Id. ¶ 24.) According to Plaintiffs, Mayor Todd “appeared and intervened” in the traffic stop. ( Id.) Mayor Todd then sought to terminate Officer Phillips' employment based on the alleged mishandling of a traffic ticket six months prior. ( Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs contend that Magistrate Welch objected to Officer Phillips voiding a traffic ticket. ( Id.) Chief Woodard investigated the incident and sought an opinion from the League of Municipalities attorney on the issue. According to Plaintiffs, the attorney advised Chief Woodard that Officer Phillips handled the traffic ticket appropriately. ( Id.)

At some point,⁶ Mayor Todd complained to the Mayor of Adamsville that police officers were being employed by both towns part time. ( Id. ¶ 26.) Officer Phillips had been employed by both Adamsville and Oakman. Plaintiffs contend that because of Mayor Todd's complaints, Officer Phillips employment with Adamsville was terminated. ( Id.)

At some unidentified time, Officer Phillips “voic[ed] his support for the professional performance of Chief Woodward's [sic] police duties and the public safety of the Town of Oakman.” ( Id. ¶ 27.) Officer Phillips was later arrested on September 20, 2010, for interference with governmental operations. ( Id.) Plaintiffs again contend that a sham complaint was signed by Wilson at the direction of Magistrate Welch. Magistrate Welch then opposed the city prosecutor making an “independent determination of the validity of the charges” and “insisted that the charges for which the arrests were accomplished by prosecuted.” ( Id. ¶ 28.) Ultimately, the charge was dismissed by the Circuit Court. ( Id. ¶ 29 n. 2.)

At some unknown time, City Council member Smith told the Chairman of the Water Board something “to the effect that any funds that had been co-mingled with the municipal court money should be released only with a court order, so as to provide protection against any allegations of mis-appropriation of funds.” ( Id. ¶ 30.) On or around September 11, 2010, Magistrate Welch issued a warrant for Smith's arrest for interference with governmental operations based solely on this alleged statement. ( Id.) Smith was arrested and detained overnight. His arrest was published in the “Just Busted” newspaper. ( Id. ¶ 32.) Later, Smith was acquitted on the charges. ( Id. ¶ 30 n. 3.)

III. Standard.

A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. “The standard of review for a motion to dismiss...