Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 09-2317
SCOTT A. STICKLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TIM SUTHERLY, Individually, and in his official capacity as
Chief
of
Police,
Town
of
Strasburg;
KEVIN
FAUBER,
Individually, and in his official capacity as Town Manager,
Town of Strasburg; TOWN OF STRASBURG, VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00004-sgw)
Argued:
December 8, 2010
Decided:
parties
in
this
case
ask
us
to
decide
whether
the
Fauber
appellant
whether
qualified
Scott
the
immunity
Stickleys
district
for
First
court
an
alleged
Amendment
correctly
held
violation
rights
that
and
the
Town
of
(b)
of
and
Faubers
holdings
on
actions.
both
We
agree
qualified
with
immunity
the
and
district
municipal
Scott
Stickley
joined
the
Strasburg,
Virginia
of promotions during his years with the SPD and earned high
marks on his assessments.
from
Stickley
on
the
SPD.
administrative
On
July
leave,
10,
2007,
suspended
Sutherly
placed
Stickleys
police
received
comments
from
residents
stating
that
Sutherly
published
front-page
article
on
police
officer
calling
for
disciplinary actions.
community-wide
discussion
of
the
SPD
thereafter,
Carl
Rinker,
Town
Council
Member
The two
with
Rinker,
Sutherly
Following Sutherlys
placed
Stickley
on
violated
command
Sutherly
in
a
SPD
regulations
talking
to
grievance
by
Rinker.
notice
on
going
In
June
outside
response,
11,
the
chain
Stickley
2008,
of
sent
alleging
On June 20,
committed
regulations.
Strasburg
two
Category
Specifically,
Town
Manager,
III
infractions
Sutherly
dismissed
and
of
Kevin
Stickley
for
the
SPD
Fauber,
having
the
taken
its
members,
or
employees
and
had
committed
p.
14.
At
oral
argument,
counsel
Brief of
for
Stickley
The Board
to
dismissal
his
from
conversation
the
SPD.
with
The
Carl
district
Rinker
court
and
subsequent
granted
summary
review
de
novo
district
courts
grant
of
summary
judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.
1997).
4
II.
Analysis
functions
from
personal-capacity
liability
for
Campbell v.
Galloway, 483 F.3d 258, 270 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations
omitted).
violated
the
rights.
Pearson
v.
Instead,
the
court
plaintiffs
Callahan,
may
first
statutory
129
S.
determine
Ct.
or
constitutional
808,
whether
818
the
(2009).
right
in
Id.
Id.
is
often
appropriate,
the
courts
should
be
permitted
to
Id.
record,
we
believe
it
appropriate
to
forego
making
Amendment
rights.
Instead,
we
consider
only
whether
right
is
clearly
established
if
the
contours
of
the
does
not
expect
the
defendant
to
sort
out
The
conflicting
Id. at 271.
Officials are not liable for bad guesses in gray areas; they
are
liable
for
transgressing
bright
lines.
Maciariello
v.
We now turn to a
Stickleys
asserted
right
established.
to
speak
was
clearly
right
to
speak
must
be
analyzed
under
two-part
test.
First,
the
court
must
determine
whether
the
employees
Connick v. Myers,
Id.
with
or
interested
in
the
particular
expression.
Kirby v. City of Elizabeth City, 388 F.3d 440, 446 (4th Cir.
2004).
personal
interest,
protection.
156
(4th
however,
the
First
Amendment
offers
no
[p]ersonal
employment,
interest
do
concern
that
1992).
grievances,
or
As
are
constitute
protected
about
the
about
other
speech
by
court
Stroman
complaints
expressions
not
the
First
conditions
matters
about
explained,
of
matters
of
personal
of
Amendment,
public
but
are
and
only
if
the
speech
relates
to
matter
of
To do this, the
and
efficient
Connick,
461
governments
U.S.
at
interest
150.
The
in
the
employer
effective
need
not
prove
that
the
adverse
effect
Maciariello,
973
was
F.2d
reasonably
at
300
to
(quoting
be
apprehended.
Jurgensen
v.
Fairfax
Cnty., 745 F.2d 868, 879 (4th Cir. 1984)). This interest is
viewed as if on a spectrum "from university professors at one
end
to
policemen
at
the
other."
Id.
Police
officers
are
Id;
were
in
sufficient
discipline,
state
esprit
interests
to
de
corps,
defeat
and
due
Consequently,
at 300.
Having
speech,
we
reviewed
are
the
persuaded
substantive
that
the
law
law
in
governing
this
employee
area
is
not
We reach
conclusion
that
an
employees
right
to
speech
in
any
The
This is a
becomes
public
boundary
discern.
matter
confining
The
of
a
second
concern
public
prong
is
officials
of
the
blurry,
and
behavior
test
may
be
thus
is
the
hard
even
to
more
substantial.
This
conclusion,
in
turn,
becomes
an
ante
that
immunity
makes
the
standpoint.
inquiry
As
we
problematic
have
stated
from
before,
qualified
where
the
plaintiffs
constitutional
rights
have
been
In a factual situation,
clear,
defendant.
qualified
immunity
does
not
protect
the
It is the
was
paramount,
that
leads
us
to
conclude
that
B. Municipal Liability
A plaintiff suing a municipal entity under 42 U.S.C. 1983
must show that his or her injury was caused by municipal policy
or custom.
[M]unicipal
decision
by
liability
municipal
circumstances.
may
be
imposed
policymakers
under
for
Id. at
a
single
appropriate
480 (1986).
must
final
possess
authority
to
establish
municipal
policy
F.3d 766, 782 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Pembaur, 475 U.S. at
481)).
11
the
of
Strasburg
retains
the
final
decisionmaking
The
Sutherly
had
final
authority
in
all
matters
of
policy
As
come
before
Board
of
Inquiry
to
decide
the
question
of
that
Sutherly
did
not
reserve
to
himself
final
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the district courts grant of summary judgment
in favor of defendants on the issues of qualified immunity and
municipal liability is
AFFIRMED.
12