Hines v. Town of Vonore

912 F.Supp.2d 628

Ira John HINES, Plaintiff,

v.TOWN OF VONORE, Town of Vonore Mayor Larry Summey, individually and in his official and employment capacity, Town of Vonore Vice Mayor/Police Commissioner John Hammontree, individually and in his official and employment capacity, Town of Vonore Alderman James “Hamp” Brown, individually and in his official and employment capacity, Chief of Town of Vonore Police Mike Myers, individually and in his official and employment capacity, Defendants.

No. 3:10–CV–333.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee.

Dec. 5, 2012.

John Steven Collins, Ronald C. Newcomb, Burroughs, Collins & Newcomb, PLC, Charles C. Burks, Jr., Justice, Noel & Burks, Knoxville, TN, for Plaintiff.

Nathan D. Rowell, Dan R. Pilkington, Watson, Roach, Batson, Rowell & Lauderback PLC, Knoxville, TN, Daniel H. Rader, III, Daniel H. Rader, IV, Moore, Rader, Clift & Fitzpatrick, PC, Cookeville, TN, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief Judge.

This civil case is before the Court on two motions: a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Mike Myers [Doc. 58] filed by former Police Chief Mike Myers (“Myers”); and a separate Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 62] filed by the Town of Vonore (“Vonore”), Vonore Mayor Larry Summey (“Summey”), Alderman and Police Commissioner John Hammontree (“Hammontree”), and Alderman James Brown (“Brown”) (collectively, “Vonore defendants”). Plaintiff submitted responses to both motions [Docs. 67, 73] to which both sets of defendants submitted replies [Docs. 79, 80]. Both parties have submitted various deposition excerpts and defendant Myers submitted a CD with recordings of several meetings between plaintiff and defendants along with transcripts of those meetings. This Court heard oral argument on the motions on October 22, 2012. The motions are ripe for determination. For the reasons set forth herein, Myers's motion [Doc. 58] and the Vonore defendants' motion [Doc. 62] will both be GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff's federal claims will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and because there is no compelling reason to support this Court's continued jurisdiction of plaintiff's remaining state law claims, those claims will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and this case will be CLOSED.

I. Facts

In September 2009, Summey was elected mayor and defendant Hammontree was elected to be an alderman for the Town of Vonore [Doc. 63 at 3]. At that time, plaintiff was Chief of Police for Vonore, a position which he had held since 2007. Upon taking office, Summey appointed Hammontree to be the Commissioner of the Police Department. As Chief of Police, plaintiff was advised that he was to work directly with Hammontree rather than reporting directly to the mayor [ Id.].

On October 29, 2009, Summey, along with Hammontree, informed plaintiff that he could resign or be demoted to patrolman, and that he was to be replaced by Myers [ Id.]. As a result of plaintiff's demotion, among other changes in benefits, plaintiff's pay was reduced to that of a patrolman, $4.00 per hour less than his previous salary [Doc. 25, ¶ 27]. In November of that year, Summey hired Melinda Fowler (“Fowler”) to be a School Resource Police Officer [ Id.].

On January 1, 2010, Summey learned from Fowler's father that Myers allegedly had inappropriate sexual conversations and had otherwise sexually harassed Fowler [Doc. 63 at 3]. After contacting Fowler, Summey requested a meeting for January 5, at which Fowler made a statement regarding the allegations in the presence of Summey and Hammontree. Specifically, the letter alleges one incident where Myers stuck a stick between her legs and rubbing them while she was cleaning [Doc. 62–5]. Myers made a response to Fowler's statement [Doc. 63 at 4]. As a result of the statements and other meetings with Fowler, and because both officers were already on probationary status, Fowler was given 60 additional days of probation, and 90 additional days of probation was given to Myers. Ultimately, Myers was forced to resign because of this incident [ Id.].

Prior to his resignation, Myers had a departmental meeting on January 2 in which plaintiff was present and which was recorded by plaintiff. Myers discussed vacation time, as well as the need to report matters to him, and to follow “protocol,” i.e. bringing complaints to him rather than to Summey, Hammontree, or others. [Ex. 7 at 30:45]. At one point Myers informed the officers of the need to follow his orders, and stated that if any of the officers wished to resign they could do so. He specifically asked plaintiff if he wished to resign from the police department [ Id. at 35:48].

On January 8, 2010, plaintiff learned of the allegations of Myers's misconduct from another Vonore police officer, Lieutenant Shane Carr, who had heard about them from Fowler. Later that day plaintiff, Carr, and Fowler met with Tellico Plains Chief of Police Bill Isbell [Doc. 25, ¶ 38]. Isbell contacted the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation as well as the District Attorney [Doc. 1–1 at 2]. Plaintiff was not otherwise involved in reporting the allegations against Myers nor was he involved in any investigation into the matter.

The next day, Saturday January 9, 2010, at approximately 10:00 p.m., plaintiff contacted Hammontree at home requesting a meeting with him [Doc. 58–10 at 2]. Plaintiff informed Hammontree he would come over to his house or that Hammontree could meet him somewhere. The two met in Hammontree's car at a local Shell Station. At that meeting, which was recorded by plaintiff [Doc. 58–10], plaintiff read aloud to Hammontree a three and one-half page, single-spaced letter addressed to Hammontree as well as Summey, Myers, Brown, and Aldermen Mike Garren and David Evans (the “letter”) [Doc. 1–2]. Plaintiff had mailed certified copies to those individuals but read the letter to Hammontree while in the car. In the letter itself, plaintiff spends two pages relaying the sequence of events that led to his demotion [ Id. at 1–2]. Plaintiff also discusses several purported violations of the requirements for officers by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) Commission [ Id. at 3]. Plaintiff next alleges that Myers paid an informant for information about him. Most relevant to the present action is plaintiff's second to last paragraph which reads as follows:

I have recently reported criminal offenses conducted by a Vonore Police Officer. I have not investigated these offenses and have only fulfilled my statutory duties to report the offenses. I have no further involvement but still fear that my job is in jeopardy in spite of the fact that again I know I was doing only what was required of me by law.

[ Id. at 4]. The letter contains no other detail or description of the criminal offenses or to whom plaintiff is referring to when he mentions a “Vonore Police Officer.” After reading the letter, plaintiff continued to meet with Hammontree until a little after midnight. As indicated by the transcript [Doc. 58–10], at no point did plaintiff discuss the paragraph pertaining to his reporting criminal offenses.

On the morning of Monday January 11, 2012, Hammontree spoke with Summey about his meeting with plaintiff that had occurred on Saturday night [Doc. 58–3 at 70]. Hammontree related to Summey that he felt he had no choice but to meet with plaintiff and that he felt intimidated while meeting with him [ Id. at 73]. Hammontree gave Summey his copy of the letter, although Summey had not yet received his own copy in the mail. In his deposition, Summey stated that although he looked at the letter and partially read it, his main concern was the fact that plaintiff had contacted Hammontree to have this meeting where he read him the letter aloud [ Id.]. Summey further stated that he did not recall seeing or discussing the part of the letter describing criminal offenses, nor did he know to what plaintiff was referring in the letter at the time he first saw it [ Id. at 77, 103]. Also on that Monday, Summey and Hammontree decided that based on the events of Saturday night and plaintiff's “erratic manner” they “needed to get rid of” plaintiff [Doc. 99–1 at 172]. Sometime between Monday and Tuesday, January 12, 2010, Hammontree gave Myers a copy of the letter to be put in plaintiff's file, per plaintiff's request. Myers was informed of the decision to terminate plaintiff by Summey, who instructed him to terminate plaintiff the next time he reported to work [ Id. at 173]. Summey did not seek input from Myers because, as the mayor, only he could terminate plaintiff [ Id.].

On Tuesday, January 12, plaintiff reported to the police department at around 4:00 p.m. where he was summoned into Myers's office. Myers first rebutted plaintiff's allegation in the letter that he had paid an informant to collect information against him [Doc. 1–3 at 4]. Myers then informed plaintiff that he had violated the “chain of command” Myers had attempted to establish in the January 2 meeting by reading the letter aloud to Hammontree and mailing the letter to the others. Myers informed plaintiff he could either resign or be terminated [Doc. 1–3 at 6]. At that point, plaintiff brought up the allegation of criminal offenses referred to in the letter, specifically stating that he had recently reported criminal offenses that Myers had committed, to which Myers responded he had no idea who plaintiff was talking about in the letter itself [ Id.]. After stating that he would not resign and that only the mayor had the authority to fire him, Summey was called and he confirmed plaintiff was being fired for “insubordination” [ Id. at 7].

Plaintiff commenced this action on August 5, 2010 [Doc. 1], originally joined by his wife and child, in which plaintiff alleged nineteen causes of action. In an Order [Doc. 24] filed April 22, 2011, 2011 WL 1532420, the Court dismissed plaintiff's wife and child as plaintiffs, dismissed Vonore Police Department, dismissed plaintiff's claim of...