Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_15-cv-00195/USCOURTS-almd-3_15-cv-00195-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ROOSEVELT FINLEY, NATHAN )

WHITE, MORRIS GREATHOUSE, )

and DAVID GALLEW, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:15cv195-CSC

) (WO)

THE TOWN OF CAMP HILL, )

ALABAMA, a municipal corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the plaintiffs, Roosevelt Finley (“Finley”), Nathan

White (“White”), Morris Greathouse (“Greathouse”), and David Gallew (“Gallew”),

complain that defendant Town of Camp Hill (“Camp Hill”), wrongfully terminated them in

violation of state law and their rights to due process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution. The court has jurisdiction of the plaintiffs’ federal claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and M.D. Ala. LR 73.1, the

parties have consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this

case and ordering the entry of final judgment. 

On April 3, 2015, the defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to

FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) asserting that counts II and III of the amended complaint should be

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 9
dismissed because these counts fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Doc.

# 12 & 13). Specifically, Camp Hill argues that the plaintiffs’ state law wrongful termination

claims are due to be dismissed because there is no state law tort of wrongful termination

under Alabama law, and ALA CODE § 11-43-230 does not provide a private right of action

for damages. Camp Hill further argues that the plaintiffs’ federal procedural due process

claims are due to be dismissed because the plaintiffs had an adequate post-deprivation

remedy. 

1

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

See Doc. # 18. The defendant has filed a reply to the plaintiffs’ response. See Doc. # 21.

After careful review of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ response to the

motion and the defendant’s reply, the court concludes that the motion to dismiss is due to be

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

II. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, the court must accept well-pled facts as true, but the court is not required to accept

the plaintiffs’ legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009) (“[T]he tenet

that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable

to legal conclusions”). In evaluating the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ pleadings, the court

 The plaintiffs also asserted a Fifth Amendment claim in the amended complaint, and a claim

1

for punitive damages. In their response to the motion to dismiss, they concede that their Fifth

Amendment claim and their claim for punitive damages are due to be dismissed. (Doc. # 18 at 11 & 13).

2

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 9
must indulge reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor, “but we are not required to draw

plaintiff’s inference.” Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1248

(11th Cir. 2005). Similarly, “unwarranted deductions of fact” in a complaint are not admitted

as true for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations. Id.. See also

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681 (stating conclusory allegations are “not entitled to be assumed true”).

A complaint may be dismissed if the facts as pled do not state a claim for relief that

is plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (explaining “only a complaint that states

a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss”); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 561-62, 570 (2007) (retiring the prior “unless it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts” standard). In Twombly, the Supreme Court emphasized

that a complaint “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do.” 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations in a

complaint need not be detailed but “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if

doubtful in fact).” Id. (internal citations and emphasis omitted).

More recently, in Iqbal, the Supreme Court reiterated that although FED.R.CIV.P. 8

does not require detailed factual allegations, it does demand “more than an unadorned,

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint must state

a plausible claim for relief, and “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

3

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 9
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The mere possibility the defendant acted unlawfully

is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at 679. The well-pled allegations must

nudge the claim “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

III. DISCUSSION

A. State Law Wrongful Termination Claims

Camp Hill argues that the plaintiffs’ claims for wrongful termination are due to be

dismissed because there is no state law tort of wrongful termination. The defendant argues 2

that “Alabama’s courts have consistently refused to recognize any variation of a wrongful

termination tort, whether rooted in the Alabama Constitution, common law, or public policy

concerns.” (Doc. # 13 at 6). However, Camp Hill ignores the fact that the plaintiffs are law

enforcement officerswhich distinguishes this case fromthe run-of-the-mill employment case. 

Alabama law specifically grants the plaintiffs the right to a pre-termination hearing. ALA

CODE § 11-43-230(a). ALA CODE § 11-43-230(c) also requires that the hearing “be

3

conducted by an impartial officer or body.” The plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint

thattheywere terminated without affording thema pre-termination hearing, and that the post-

 In Morrow v. Town of Littleville, 576 So. 2d 210, 211 n.2 (Ala. 1991), the court noted that “[a] 2

tort claim for wrongful termination of an employment contract has not been recognized in Alabama.” 

576 So. 2d at 211, n. 2. However, the court held that the plaintiff’s complaint was “sufficient to state a

claim for breach of an employment contract.” Id. at 213. 

 ALA CODE § 11-43-230(a) provides in pertinent part as follows.

3

Every municipality shall provide a predisciplinary hearing prior to the suspension or

termination of its law enforcement officers, provided nothing herein shall preclude a

municipality from placing a law enforcement officer on leave with pay until the person

or body holding the hearing has made its decision in the matter.

4

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 9
termination hearing was before a biased deliberative body. (Amended Compl. at 2, ¶ 4).

In Hardric v. City of Stevenson, 843 So. 2d 206, 210 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), the court

concluded that the plaintiff police officer’s wrongful termination claim against the City

survived the City’s motion to dismiss.

As to Hardic’s claim of wrongful termination, we view this court’s decision

in City of Gadsden v. Harbin, 398 So. 2d 707 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981), as

controlling. That decision held that a municipal employee may bring a

wrongful-termination action. This court determined that “[t]he dismissal of a

public employee who is entitled to a pretermination hearing, without such a

hearing, is a wrongful act constituting a tort under Alabama law.” Harbin, 398

So. 2d at 708. We conclude, therefore, that Hardric stated a valid claim of

wrongful termination in his original complaint.

Id. (alteration in original). 

Camp Hill also argues that the plaintiffs’ damages claims are due to be dismissed

because ALA CODE § 11-43-230(a) does not provide “a private right of action for money

damages.” (Doc. # 13 at 7). The plaintiffs concede that they are not entitled to punitive

damages, but they seek equitable relief in the form of reinstatement and back pay which is

permissible under Alabama law. See City of Gadsden v. Harbin, 398 So. 2d 707, 708 (Ala.

Civ. App. 1981) (“The dismissal of a public employee who is entitled to a pre-termination

hearing, without such a hearing, is a wrongful act constituting a tort under Alabama law and

the dismissed employee’s claim for reinstatement and back pay are tort claims subject to the

one year statute of limitations set forth in [ALA. CODE] § 6-2-39.”) If the plaintiffs are

successful on their wrongful termination claims, equitable relief in the form of reinstatement

and back pay until they receive adequate due process would be available to them. See Fowler

5

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 9
v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 122, 134 (Ala. 2006) (“it could be argued that Fowler was entitled to

back pay from the period between . . . the day after his employment was terminated . . . and

. . . the date of the trial de novo in the circuit court.”)

Because the plaintiffs allege that they were terminated without a pre-deprivation

hearing, the court concludes that they have stated “a plausible claimfor relief,” and their state

law claims of wrongful termination should not be dismissed. The defendant’s motion to

dismiss count II of the amended complaint is due to be denied.4

B. Due Process Claims

Camp Hill also asserts that the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process claims

are due to be dismissed because the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. Specifically, Camp Hill argues that because the plaintiffs have an adequate

post-deprivation remedy, they cannot pursue due process claims in federal court. 

5

In their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs assert that theywere terminated without

a pre-deprivation hearing; Camp Hill conducted a post-deprivation hearing without giving

themany notice of the charges against them; and the post-deprivation hearing was deficit and

biased because the Mayor participated in the proceeding both as the complainant and as a

 Although Camp Hill argues that plaintiffs Greathouse and Gallew are not covered under ALA 4

CODE § 11-43-230(a) because they are part-time officers, it is disputed whether ALA CODE § 11-43-

230(a) applies to them. Thus, this question is not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss.

 To the extent that the defendant argues that the plaintiffs cannot proceed in federal court

5

because Alabama provides an adequate remedy through its state courts, this argument is disingenuous in

light of the fact that the plaintiffs attempted to avail themselves of the state court remedy only to have the

defendant remove the case to federal court. 

6

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 9
deliberative member of the hearing body.

Camp Hill contends that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d

1550, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc) mandates dismissal of the plaintiffs’ due process

claims. Camp Hill’s reliance on McKinney is misplaced. In McKinney, the Court decided

the issue of

whether, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a government employee

possessing a state-created property interest in his employment states a

substantive due process claim, rather than a procedural due process claim,

when he alleges that he was deprived of that employment interest by an

arbitrary and capricious non-legislative government action.

Id. at 1553 (emphasis added). 

In this case, the plaintiffs are not raising substantive due process claims but assert

only procedural due process claims which may proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 6

1555. Consequently, McKinney does not bar the plaintiffs from seeking review of their

claims of their procedural due process claims. The plaintiffs assert that they were deprived

procedural due process because, as law enforcement officers, they were entitled to predeprivations hearings pursuant to ALA CODE § 11-43-230(a).

It is axiomatic that, in general, the Constitution requires that the state provide

fair procedures and an impartial decisionmaker before infringing on a person’s

interest in life, liberty, or property. More specifically, the Supreme Court has

explained that a “tenured employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the

charges against him, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an

opportunity to present his side of the story” before a state or state agency may

 The court also notes that McKinney was decided on a motion for summary judgment, and the 6

case at bar is before the court on a motion to dismiss.

7

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 7 of 9
terminate an employee. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546, 105, S.Ct. at 1495. In

other words, the employee is entitled to “some kind” of pre-termination

hearing. Id. at 542, 105 S.Ct. at 1493.

McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1561. See also Cotton v. Jackson, 216 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir.

2000) (“It is the state’s failure to provide adequate procedures to remedy the otherwise

procedurally flawed deprivation of a protected interest that gives rise to a federal procedural

due process claim.”).

Because the plaintiffs allege that they were terminated without a pre-deprivation

hearing, the court concludes that they have stated “a plausible claim for relief,” and their due

process claims should not be dismissed. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss

Count III is due to be denied.

C. Policy and Practices Claim against Camp Hill

The plaintiffs sue the Town of Camp Hill, for the actions of the Mayor and City

Council, in depriving them of due process “by policy, custom and practice established by the

Defendant which violated constitutional and statutory law.” (Doc. # 1, Ex. 6 at 4). 

Specifically, the plaintiffs assert that the Mayor acted as the complainant to terminate the

plaintiffs and then participated in the post-termination hearing deliberations.

While municipalities cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983, “municipal

liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policymakers under appropriate

circumstances.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480 (1986). In Pembaur, the

Court specifically referenced the decision of the City Council to fire the plaintiff without a

8

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 8 of 9
pre-termination hearing in Owen v. City of Independence, Mo., 445 U.S. 622 (1980) as an

example of a single decision creating municipal liability. Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480. If the

plaintiffs are able to establish municipal liability, they would be entitled to recover damages

on this claim. Accordingly, the court concludes that, at this juncture, the plaintiffs have

stated “a plausible claim for relief,” and the defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim and the

claim for damages is due to be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. That the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim for punitive

damages contained in Count II of the amended complaint be and is hereby GRANTED (doc.

# 12). In all other respects, the defendant’s motion to dismiss Count II of the amended

complaint be and is hereby DENIED.

2. That the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim

contained in Count III of the amended complaint be and is hereby GRANTED. In all other

respects, the motion to dismiss Count III of the amended complaint be and is hereby

DENIED. (Doc. # 12). 

Done this 30th day of April, 2015.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 3:15-cv-00195-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/30/15 Page 9 of 9