Randy Henry v. J. Johnson, 950 F.3d 1005

Background

The case arises from the May 2014 drowning of Brandon Ellingson while in Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) custody; the incident prompted civil/criminal actions and internal MSHP investigations.
Sgt. Randy Henry testified about MSHP’s role before a legislative committee (once in uniform, once as a private citizen) and in a civil deposition; he also made non-testimonial statements to the press, the Ellingson family, and on Facebook alleging an MSHP cover-up and suggesting a special prosecutor had a conflict involving her son.
After Henry admitted spreading information about the prosecutor’s son, the special prosecutor recused herself, increasing delay and cost; two prosecutors later refused to handle Henry’s cases citing trust concerns.
MSHP ordered a mandatory EAP counseling evaluation for Henry, investigated his conduct (finding violations of MSHP General Orders), and proposed a demotion and transfer; Henry declined the discipline, requested appeal continuances, and retired before a hearing.
Henry sued eleven MSHP officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (retaliation for protected First Amendment speech), civil conspiracy, and failure to supervise (among other claims). The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all claims; Henry appealed Counts One (retaliation), Three (conspiracy), and Four (failure to supervise).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MSHP retaliated in violation of the First Amendment for Henry’s speech	Henry: his testimonial and other speech were protected and motivated adverse actions (EAP referral, transfer, demotion offer)	Defendants: qualified immunity applies because (a) most non‑testimonial speech was unprotected or disrupted operations, and (b) actions were for legitimate reasons	Court: Affirmed — non‑testimonial speech failed Pickering balancing and testimonial speech was not a substantial/motivating factor; qualified immunity applies
Whether defendants conspired to violate Henry’s civil rights under § 1983	Henry: defendants conspired to retaliate for his speech	Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation, so no actionable conspiracy	Court: Affirmed dismissal — conspiracy claim fails without an underlying constitutional deprivation
Whether MSHP failed to properly supervise, creating § 1983 liability	Henry: inadequate supervision permitted constitutional violations against him	Defendants: failure‑to‑supervise claim depends on an underlying constitutional violation	Court: Affirmed dismissal — claim fails because no underlying constitutional violation was shown

Key Cases Cited

Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, 709 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment and § 1983 individual‑capacity suits)
Davenport v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trs., 553 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir. 2009) (three‑element prima facie test for retaliation for protected speech)
Hemminghaus v. Missouri, 756 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 2014) (citizen‑employee and public‑concern analysis post‑Garcetti)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (distinguishing speech pursuant to official duties from private‑citizen speech)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (content, form, and context test for public concern)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing government‑employer and citizen‑employee interests)
Morgan v. Robinson, 920 F.3d 521 (8th Cir. 2019) (law enforcement’s heightened interest in regulating officer speech)
Lindsey v. City of Orrick, 491 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2007) (employer must show speech had adverse impact on efficiency)
Belk v. City of Eldon, 228 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2000) (no need to reach Pickering if no disruption shown)
Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2007) (burden‑shifting framework for causation in retaliation cases)
Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 758 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2014) (evidence to show pretext in retaliation cases)
Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1999) (conspiracy claim requires proof of constitutional deprivation)
Mendoza v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 849 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2017) (failure‑to‑supervise claim fails absent underlying constitutional violation)