Carlton v. Wayman

1

BRIAN CARLTON, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT WAYMAN and WESTMORELAND COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-480

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

September 30, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

W SCOTT HARDY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Brian Carlton (“Carlton”) brings this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Robert Wayman (“Wayman”) and the Westmoreland County Republican Committee (the “WCRC”). (Docket No. 31). Carlton's claims arise from his engagement in certain activities, as president of the Norwin School Board, involving political opposition to Wayman, also an elected member of the Norwin School Board. Plaintiff avers that, in response to his activities that are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Wayman and the WCRC retaliated against him.

The Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 31), which is the operative complaint here, is the third complaint filed in this matter. In the initial Complaint and the first Amended Complaint, Carlton's wife, Margaret Carlton, was also a named plaintiff, and the Norwin School District was also named as a defendant. (Docket Nos. 1, 7). In response to Carlton's Amended Complaint, which contained seven counts, Defendants filed motions to dismiss and, after the parties' briefing was complete, the Court held oral argument on those motions. (Docket No. 28).

Through a combination of Carlton's concessions and the parties' stipulating to voluntary dismissal of certain claims, the claims against Norwin School District were dismissed and Margaret Carlton was terminated as a named plaintiff. After consideration of the parties' briefs and hearing oral argument, the Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint (some with prejudice and some without prejudice) and gave Carlton leave to amend. (Docket No. 30). Thereafter Carlton filed his Second Amended Complaint, which now contains three counts, and the remaining Defendants again filed motions to dismiss.

Presently before the Court are Defendants' two motions to dismiss Carlton's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Carlton's responses: (1) Wayman's “Motion to Dismiss 2^nd Amended Complaint” and brief in support (Docket Nos. 32, 33) and Carlton's brief in opposition thereto (Docket No. 40); and (2) the WCRC's “F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint” and brief in support (Docket Nos. 34, 35) and Carlton's brief in opposition thereto (Docket No. 41). After careful consideration of the parties' arguments and for the following reasons, Defendants' motions will be granted, and the claims lodged against them in the Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

As the parties are well-acquainted with the factual background of this case, at this juncture the Court will present an abbreviated version of the facts, as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint^[1] and in the light most favorable to Carlton, that are relevant to the motions presently before the Court. Carlton is a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, and, at the time of the events at issue here, was the duly elected president of the Norwin School District Board of Education (the “Norwin School Board”). (Docket No. 31, ¶¶ 5, 12). Defendant Wayman is a resident of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, and at all times relevant to the facts alleged, was and is a duly elected board member of the Norwin School District and a duly elected official of Defendant WCRC. (Id. ¶ 6). Defendant WCRC is a public entity and political committee with elected officials in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 7). The WCRC has several subdivisions within Westmoreland County, one of which is WCRC District 3, which represents North Huntingdon, Irwin, and North Irwin, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 8).

Carlton avers in his Second Amended Complaint that during August and/or September, 2020, in his capacity as president of the Norwin School Board, he issued various public statements condemning inappropriate and offensive statements that had been made by Wayman, who was a member of the Norwin School Board at the time he made such statements. (Docket No. 31, ¶¶ 10-14). During a meeting of the Norwin School Board on September 21, 2020, Carlton voted in favor of motions to call for Wayman's resignation, to censure Wayman, and to remove Wayman from his position as Pennsylvania School Board Association liaison. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 17). During that same meeting, Wayman stated that he would seek recourse against any individual who voted to take any action against him. (Id. ¶ 16).

In April, 2021, Carlton spoke at a WCRC District 3 meeting to seek an endorsement for his re-election to the Norwin School Board. (Docket No. 31, ¶ 20). Carlton avers that he did not act in any inappropriate or harassing manner during that meeting. (Id. ¶ 21). Sometime afterward, Wayman, in his capacity as a duly elected official of the WCRC, discussed taking action against Carlton with other members of the WCRC, including WCRC District 3's chairman, Steve Cleaveland (“Cleaveland”). (Id. ¶ 22). In a letter sent to Carlton from an attorney (who is not named in the Second Amended Complaint), dated April 22, 2021 (hereinafter, the “Attorney letter”), Carlton was notified “that he was prohibited from attending Defendant WCRC's meetings and was threatened with criminal prosecution if he continued to attend.” (Docket No. 40 at 4; see also Docket No. 31, ¶¶ 23, 24). Carlton was later informed by several members of the WCRC, including the WCRC's chairman, that they were unaware of the letter or its contents. (Docket No. 31, ¶¶ 25, 26). Cleaveland also later told Carlton that Wayman had been behind the letter. (Id. ¶ 27). Carlton “believes, and therefore avers, that [Wayman] initiated that letter in retaliation for [Carlton's] political opposition to [Wayman] and to prevent [Carlton] from engaging in the political process.” (Id. ¶ 29).

According to the Second Amended Complaint, on or about February 7, 2022, “Concerned Citizens of Penn Trafford School District” sent a letter (hereinafter, the “Concerned Citizens letter”) to Carlton's employer, Penn Trafford School District. (Docket No. 31, ¶¶ 30, 31). The letter made false allegations against Carlton, including that he “spreads lies and slander[s] people because he is upset that he was unseated from the Norwin School Board,” and that he had engaged in “unprofessional and possibly illegal behavior.” (Id. ¶ 31). The Concerned Citizens letter also alleged that members of the WCRC were “afraid to attend meetings” because of the “violence and threats made by [Carlton].” (Id. ¶ 32). The letter further threatened to report Carlton to the Department of Education “and or the proper legal authorities.” (Id. ¶ 35). Prior to Penn Trafford School District receiving this letter, Wayman told individuals within Carlton's community, members of the WCRC including Cleaveland, Joanna Jordan, and Darlene Ciocca, that he would attempt to have Carlton removed from his position as a teacher in retaliation for Carlton's political opposition to Wayman. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 38). Carlton “believes, and therefore avers, that [Wayman] sent that letter, in his capacity as a duly elected school board member and/or in his capacity as a duly elected member of [the WCRC], in retaliation for [Carlton's] political opposition to [Wayman].” (Id. ¶ 36).

Carlton further avers that Wayman knew or should have known that the statements contained in the Concerned Citizens letter were patently false and defamatory and placed Carlton in a false light to members of his community. (Docket No. 31, ¶ 39). Carlton also states that he “believes, and therefore avers, that [Wayman] made the statements contained in the [Concerned Citizens letter] with the intent to harm [Carlton's] reputation, defame [Carlton's] character, negatively affect [Carlton's] career, and to cause [Carlton] emotional distress.” (Id. ¶ 40). Carlton further states that Wayman's conduct has negatively affected Carlton's reputation, placed him in a false light to members of his community, and otherwise defamed his character. (Id. ¶ 43).

The Second Amended Complaint contains three Counts. Count I, brought pursuant to Section 1983 and based on the Attorney letter, alleges that both Wayman and the WCRC retaliated against Carlton for voicing political opposition to, and politically opposing, Wayman, in violation of Carlton's rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Docket No. 31 at 7-8). Count II, brought pursuant to Section 1983 and based on the Concerned Citizens letter, alleges that Wayman retaliated against Carlton for voicing political opposition to, and politically opposing, Wayman, in violation of Carlton's First Amendment rights. (Id. at 8-9). In Count III, Carlton alleges a claim of libel per se under Pennsylvania common law against Wayman alone, based on the Concerned Citizens letter. (Id. at 10-11). In moving to dismiss Carlton's Second Amended Complaint, both the WCRC and Wayman argue that Carlton has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Carlton filed his responses opposing Defendants' motions, and the matter is now ripe for decision.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the factual allegations contained in the complaint must be accepted as true and must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the court must “‘determine...