Turner v. The City of Dothan et al

Filing 74

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/30/15. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN TURNER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF DOTHAN, a Municipality, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10cv985-MHT (WO) OPINION Plaintiff John Turner brought this action against the defendants (the City of Dothan and a number of its police officers in asserting their unlawful official search and and individual use of capacities), excessive force in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution as well as violations of Alabama proper common under 1343(a)(3) 28 (civil law. U.S.C. rights), Subject-matter §§ 1331 and 1367 jurisdiction (federal is question), (supplemental). The case is now before the court on the defendants’ objection to Turner’s dismiss. amended complaint and the defendants’ motion to The motion to dismiss will be granted and the objection to Turner’s amended complaint will be overruled as moot. I. BACKGROUND This case arises out of late-night 9-1-1 call to the police from Turner’s residence. In November 2008, someone from the residence started to call 9-1-1 but hung up before anyone answered. investigate companion and, at A Dothan policeman came to the house to after the knocking, front door. was The greeted by policeman Turner’s walked in uninvited. After the policeman entered, Turner asked him to leave. Following a discussion, the policeman used his taser several times on Turner. Multiple other police officers then arrived at the house and proceeded to threaten, punch, and kick Turner. Turner Turner claims he was not resisting. brought this case about two years later, asserting illegal police conduct during the above incident. However, at the same time Turner was bringing this case in federal court, he was being prosecuted in state court for assault and resisting arrest based on the same incident. 2 Turner moved court--that to is, discontinue he pretrial essentially deadlines sought a in of stay this this litigation--in response to the state prosecution. Counsel for the defendants objected. In May 2011, this court conducted an on-the-record call regarding the motion to discontinue. In that call, the defendants’ counsel explained that he objected to a stay of the litigation unless Turner’s counsel provided assurance that the federal case would be dismissed should Turner be convicted in state court. Turner’s lawyer stated that he had “no intent on going forward with the case if [Turner] got found guilty” in Telephone Conference. for assurance. state court. See May 3, 2011, When pressed, he agreed to do more Specifically, he stated that, if Turner agreed, he would provide the court a signed statement from Turner promising to dismiss the federal case should Turner be found Turner’s guilty counsel in state had court. three days This to court file ruled the promised statement or else the motion for a stay would be denied. 3 that Three days later, Turner filed another motion to discontinue existing pretrial deadlines with an accompanying declaration. The declaration reads: “COMES NOW Plaintiff John Turner, and pursuant to the verbal order of the Court, expresses the following as his declaration of intent with regard to the future progress of this case: In the event Plaintiff is found guilty of the charges of assault and resisting arrest currently pending against him in the case of City of Dothan v. John Turner, CC 2009-1367, Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, he will dismiss this federal civil suit; however, in the event Plaintiff is found not guilty of the charges, he will go forward in prosecuting this federal case to its conclusion.” Dec. to the Court (doc. no. 41) at 3. declaration, and it was notarized. Turner signed the After receiving this declaration, the court discontinued all deadlines, stayed this litigation, and required the parties to provide monthly joint reports on the status of the criminal case. Around three years later, in March 2014, a state jury found Turner not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of resisting arrest. The stay was dissolved the same month. Turner moved to amend his complaint in October 2014. The court allowed the amended 4 complaint but provided defendants with time to file an objection. The defendants filed a timely objection to the amended complaint and moved to dismiss. II. DISCUSSION The defendants argue that their objection to the amended complaint should be sustained and the motion to dismiss granted because Turner made a valid contract to dismiss the case should he be found guilty in state court and because Turner is bound by judicial declaration to the court. estoppel to follow his The court finds that Turner is bound by his contract; therefore, it need not address the judicial-estoppel argument. As this court has previously discussed, federal courts have taken different approaches in interpreting contracts, such as settlement agreements, that resolve federal claims. Hogan v. Allstate Beverage Co., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1279 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (Thompson, J.). While some have applied federal common law, others have looked to state courts. Id. The only appreciable difference that could be relevant is that Alabama law requires a 5 signed, written document, whereas federal agreements. courts Id.; see will also at 1975 times Ala. enforce Code oral § 34-3-21. However, Turner submitted a signed, written document valid under federal law and Alabama state law, and therefore need not resolve which law applies. the court Because the defendants use state law, because Turner does not challenge its use, and because the court does not discern any material difference between federal and state law on the matter at issue, the court relies on state law below. A valid contract requires “an offer and an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent to terms essential to the formation of a contract.” Shaffer v. Regions Fin. Corp., 29 So. 3d 872 (Ala. 2009). “[I]t is well settled that where there is uncertainty and ambiguity in a contract, it is the duty of the court to construe the contract so as to express the intent of the parties.” Kelmore, LLC v. Alabama Dynamics, Inc., 20 So. 3d 783, 791 (Ala. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f the contract is ambiguous, parol or extrinsic evidence will be allowed to clarify the contract.” Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. deCelle, 722 So. 2d 760, 762 (Ala. 1998). 6 As a threshold matter, the court interprets Turner’s declaration to the court as a written memorialization of the contract between Turner and the defendants. In 2011, what Turner wanted was essentially a stay of the case, and the defendants offered to do so, if provided assurance that Turner would not pursue his federal litigation should he be found guilty in state court. Turner accepted this offer by submitting a written declaration to the court memorializing his promise. In consideration of this promise, the defendants did not oppose the stay, and, in return, they received a promise of dismissal if Turner was found guilty in state court. acceptance, and The contract therefore consideration. The had an court offer, turns to interpreting the valid contract. There is some ambiguity as to whether Turner’s declaration promised to dismiss the federal case if he was found guilty of one, but not all, of the state charges. declaration found first guilty of states that assault and “in the resisting event The [Turner] arrest,” he is will dismiss the suit; but, in the event Turner is “found not guilty of the charges,” he will go forward with the federal 7 case. Dec. to the Court (doc. no. 41) (emphasis added). The conjunctive “and” in the first section could be read as Turner agreeing to drop federal charges only if he were found guilty of both crimes rather than just one. reading, however, is in tension the second part, This which implies that he will only go forward with the federal suit if he was “found not guilty of the charges.” Id. (emphasis added). Given this ambiguity, the court turns to extrinsic evidence and concludes that Turner agreed to dismiss the federal suit if he was found guilty of either charge in state court. Ins. Corp. Kelmore, 20 So. 3d at 791; see also Alfa Life v. Johnson, 822 So. 2d 400, 405 (Ala. 2001) (“[I]f the trial court finds the contract to be ambiguous, it must employ established rules of contract construction to resolve the ambiguity.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). First, Turner’s motion to discontinue deadlines, to which his declaration is attached, clarifies the ambiguity. It states that “in the event [Turner] is found not guilty of all charges, he will prosecute this federal case to its conclusion.” Mot. to Discontinue 8 Existing Pretrial Deadlines (doc. no. 41) at 1 (emphasis added). The adjective “all” makes clear that even if Turner is found not guilty of one charge, but guilty of another, he will not prosecute the federal case. Turner does not take Second, and most importantly, issue with this reading of the declaration. Instead of arguing that he does not have to dismiss under the contract because he was found guilty of one rather than both crimes, Turner contends that he never received valid consideration for his waiver of constitutional rights. He cites Faris v. Williams WPC-I, Inc., 332 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2003), where the court noted, in the context of statutory rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2604, that there must be consideration when a recently fired employee signs away her rights to any claim arising under federal, state, or local law. is inapposite. Most simply, Turner This cited case did receive consideration when the defendants agreed not to oppose the stay. cases Moreover, the equities differ. frequently make strategic Plaintiffs in civil decisions not to bring constitutional claims or to drop others while litigating. 9 This decision is not comparable to an unrepresented employee signing a represented waiver of plaintiff rights; making a rather, strategic it involves decision on a how best to enforce those rights during litigation. In sum, Turner made an agreement to dismiss this federal-court case if he was found guilty of a crime in state court based on the same facts. He was subsequently found guilty in state court but sought to continue this suit rather than dropping it as promised. The court will deny this attempt and hold Turner to his agreement.* * As an alternative ground, the court also would dismiss the case based on judicial estoppel. There are two factors in the judicial-estoppel test: Turner must have taken inconsistent positions, and these positions must have made a mockery of the judicial system. Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). As discussed above, Turner took inconsistent positions--that is, he promised to stop litigating his federal case if he were found guilty in state court on either charge but now is trying to litigate his federal claim despite the guilty verdict. Although Turner contends that the inconsistent positions must be in different proceedings rather than in the same litigation, the court is unpersuaded. See Wright & Miller, 18B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 4477 (2d ed.) (“There is no reason to suppose that a court is helpless to protect itself against inconsistent positions taken in the course of a single (continued...) 10 An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 30th day of April, 2015. /s/ Myron H. Thompson___ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ongoing proceeding.”); see also New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001) (describing inconsistent positions as “prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase”); In re Carbon Dioxide Indus. Antitrust Litig., 229 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Having induced the court to rely on a particular erroneous proposition of law or fact, a party in the normal case may not at a later stage of the case use the error to set aside the immediate consequences of the error.”). Turner also has made a mockery of the judicial system because his errors were “intentional contradictions, not simple error or inadvertence.” Id. at 1275 (internal quotation marks omitted). Allowing Turner to litigate his federal case after he agreed to dismiss it would create the perception (and the reality) that the court was misled and would “impose an unfair detriment” on the defendants, who would have to continue litigating a case that should have been dismissed. See Maine, 532 U.S. at 751 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?