Tregg Wilson v. Mike Tregre
787 F.3d 322
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Wilson, Chief Deputy and attorney for St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff’s Office, learned in May 2013 that interrogation rooms were subject to visible 24-hour audio/video surveillance with recordings retained up to 30 days.
- Wilson raised concerns internally to Sheriff Tregre and Internal Affairs, and externally to the District Attorney and Louisiana State Police, prompting investigations; State Police found no criminal violations and the DA requested production of interrogation videos for Brady review.
- Sheriff Tregre terminated Wilson on June 10, 2013; Wilson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment), Louisiana whistleblower statutes (§ 23:967 and § 42:1169), and Louisiana constitutional provisions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff on all claims; denied Wilson’s motions to amend/dismiss one state claim; Wilson appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed, holding Wilson’s speech was unprotected employment-related speech and rejecting his state-law whistleblower claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson’s reports were protected First Amendment speech (retaliation claim) | Wilson contends his complaints about recordings were citizen speech on a matter of public concern | Tregre argues Wilson spoke pursuant to his official duties as Chief Deputy (unprotected under Garcetti) | Held for defendant: speech was within job duties, so not First Amendment protected |
| Whether the district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing federal claim | Wilson argued state claims were novel/complex and district court should dismiss them | Tregre argued district court could retain jurisdiction given case readiness | Held for defendant: district court did not abuse discretion; claims not novel/complex and case was trial-ready |
| Whether Wilson qualified for protection under La. Rev. Stat. § 23:967 (whistleblower) | Wilson claimed he reported violations (attorney–client privilege abuse, Fourth Amendment/wiretapping, Brady/Article 716 violations) | Tregre argued no actual violation of Louisiana law was shown; recording equipment was visible; no evidence of Brady/Article 716 breaches | Held for defendant: Wilson failed to show an actual violation of Louisiana law; § 23:967 protection not met |
| Whether Wilson’s § 42:1169 claim proceeds despite not filing required ethics board report | Wilson sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice to allow administrative exhaustion and Board action | Tregre argued the statute requires Board filing and does not create a private right to sue | Held for defendant: district court did not abuse discretion denying dismissal; claim dismissed with prejudice because statute provides no private right absent Board filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (speech pursuant to official duties is not First Amendment protected)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (clarifies inquiry whether speech is ordinarily within scope of employment)
- Nixon v. City of Houston, 511 F.3d 494 (elements of public-employee First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 347 (summary-judgment standard on appeal)
- In re U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (privacy expectations analysis referenced)
- Del-Ray Battery Co. v. Douglas Battery Co., 635 F.3d 725 (supplemental jurisdiction discretion)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (requirement to show prejudice for claims asserting withheld evidence)