Ferguson v. City of Fatetteville et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Chief Medlock are DISMISSED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order to conform his claims to the proffer of facts made at the hearing. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 5/26/2015. (Marsh, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:14-CV-870-BO

ROBERT G. FERGUSON,

)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and CHIEF
HAROLD E. MEDLOCK, in his official
Capacity as Chief of Police for the
Fayetteville Police Department,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A hearing was held on the matter before the
undersigned on May 13, 2015, at Raleigh, North Carolina. For the reasons discussed below, the
motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a former police officer with the City of Fayetteville, filed this complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of his liberty interest and due process rights under the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff alleges that he was
hired as a police officer by the City of Fayetteville in 2008 and that in January 2014 he was
placed on administrative duty without being given a reason. His gun and badge were taken as a
part ofbeing placed on administrative duty. In February 2014, plaintiff learned that he was
being charged with professional misconduct related to three incidents that occurred in July 2013,
November 2013, and January 2014. Plaintiff denies any professional misconduct.

When defendants' investigation into the misconduct charges had not been completed on
April 1, 2014, plaintiff submitted his resignation. Thereafter, and without notice to or
participation in by plaintiff, defendants commenced a Chain of Command Review Board
(CCRB) review of the charges of misconduct. On April29, 2014, defendants notified plaintiff
by letter that the administrative investigation was complete, that it had been reviewed by the
CCRB, and that because plaintiff had resigned prior to the completion of the investigation he had
no rights to appeal. The complaint further alleges that the CCRB policy does not provide an
officer with the opportunity to be present at the review, address the members of the CCRB, or
question witnesses, thereby denying plaintiff with the right to a name-clearing hearing and the
right to cross-examine witnesses.
DISCUSSION
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Papasan v. Allain,
478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). When acting on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "the court
should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most
favorable to the plaintiff." Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). A
complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is facially plausible. Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Facial plausibility means that the facts
pled "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged"; mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by conclusory
statements do not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the factual allegations
do not nudge the plaintiffs claims "across the line from conceivable to plausible," the
"complaint must be dismissed." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

2

A procedural due process right is implicated "when governmental action threatens a
person's liberty interest in his reputation and choice of occupation." Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors

Marshall Univ., 44 7 F .3d 292, 307 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564,
573 & n.l2 (1972)). "To state this type ofliberty interest claim under the Due Process Clause, a
plaintiff must allege that the charges against him: (1) placed a stigma on his reputation; (2) were
made public by the employer; (3) were made in conjunction with his termination or demotion;
and (4) were false." Sciolino v. City of Newport News, Va., 480 F.3d 642, 646 (4th Cir. 2007).
"This claim protects an employee's freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities
by preventing a public employer from disseminating false reasons for the employee's discharge
without providing the employee notice and opportunity to be heard in order to clear his name."

Miller v. Hamm, CIV. CCB-10-243, 2011 WL 9185, at *8 (D. Md. Jan. 3, 2011) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Court has considered the complaint in light of the applicable standards and concludes
that dismissal is not warranted at this time. Though the factual recitation in plaintiffs complaint
is somewhat bare, plaintiffhas sufficiently alleged that he was deprived of his liberty interest
when, after his resignation, defendants proceeded to conduct a review of plaintiffs alleged
misconduct and denied plaintiff the opportunity to be present and participate in the review. The
Court recognizes that plaintiff resigned rather than was terminated, but finds plausible plaintiffs
claim that, in these circumstances, the voluntariness of his resignation should be overridden by
the fact that defendants proceeded to review his conduct after his separation from the department
without providing plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to be heard. See e.g. Velez v. Levy,
401 F.3d 75, 89 (2nd Cir. 2005) (recognizing that timing of stigma and deprivation of tangible
interest is not critical so long as they are sufficiently proximate). Further, plaintiff has denied

3

that he committed any misconduct, which would render defendants' finding of misconduct false,
and has sufficiently alleged that the contents of the investigation and CCRB review will be made
public upon request for inspection by other police departments from which plaintiff seeks future
employment and that the result of the investigation places a stigma on his reputation. The Court
finds that plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded his due process liberty interest claim.
Defendants further contend that the official capacity claims against Chief Medlock
should be dismissed. Claims against government officials in their official capacities are in all
respects suits against the agency or government entity itself. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,
166 (1985). Plaintiff has pleaded claims against Chief Medlock in his official capacity only, and
as the City is also a defendant to this suit, those claims ae properly dismissed as duplicative.
CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court declines to dismiss plaintiffs complaint at this stage and
DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART defendants' motion to dismiss [DE 12]. Plaintiffs
official capacity claims against Chief Medlock are DISMISSED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file
an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order to conform his
claims to the proffer of facts made at the hearing.

SO ORDERED, this _lhday of May, 2015.

T
NCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD

4