335 F. Supp. 3d 818
W.D. Va.2018Background
- Brian Clark was subject to a court-imposed ban from the Patrick County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office; on July 25, 2016 he had friends file papers for him while he waited outside.
- A courthouse visitor (Inzerillo) overheard deputies discussing a plan to “take down” Clark; Lt. Rob Coleman was identified as present in that conversation.
- As Clark left, Coleman stopped the vehicle carrying Clark (driven by Clark’s sister), requested Clark’s ID, and detained the occupants for ~20 minutes; deputies later served Clark with a no-trespass notice and released him.
- Clark sued Coleman, Sheriff Dan Smith, and Geri Hazelwood under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure and First Amendment retaliation, and sought relief against enforcement of the state-court ban (Count IV).
- Court resolved summary judgment motions: granted summary judgment for Sheriff Smith (individual claims) and Hazelwood; denied qualified-immunity protection for Coleman on the unlawful seizure claim (Count II), allowing that claim to proceed to trial; Coleman prevailed on the retaliation claim (Count III).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment / official-capacity claims against Sheriff Smith | Smith, as county sheriff, can be sued for injunctive/constitutional relief | Smith asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity claims | Official-capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; Count IV (challenge to state-court order) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman |
| Smith’s individual liability under § 1983 for the alleged seizure/retaliation | Smith was present at scene and part of a plan to “take down” Clark | Smith had no involvement or knowledge of any plan or the stop | No evidence Smith participated or deprived Clark of constitutional rights; summary judgment for Smith on Counts II and III |
| Coleman — unlawful seizure (§ 1983) and qualified immunity | Coleman unlawfully stopped and detained Clark without probable cause or reasonable suspicion; stop was retaliatory | Coleman claimed he observed a concerning gesture and acted lawfully; asserted qualified immunity | Court finds disputed facts favor Clark and that stopping the vehicle without cause violated the Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity denied — Count II proceeds to trial against Coleman |
| Hazelwood — First Amendment retaliation (signing no-trespass notice) | Hazelwood signed/authorized no-trespass in retaliation for Clark’s protected speech | Hazelwood acted at supervisor’s direction and lacked knowledge of Clark’s protected activity; no causal link | No evidence Hazelwood knew of Clark’s protected speech or acted with retaliatory motive; summary judgment for Hazelwood on Count I |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (use-of-force summary-judgment standard; facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; materiality and genuine dispute rules)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure; reasonableness requires probable cause)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework; courts may address ‘‘clearly established’’ prong first)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established rights standard for qualified immunity)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (First Amendment protects verbal challenges to police; limits police power to punish speech)
- Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) (obscene gestures and verbal insults at officers are protected expression; stopping/hassling speaker is constitutionally prohibited)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (initial qualified-immunity framework; relevance to clearly established inquiry)