Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01160/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01160-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Montgomery
Defendant
Scott Hunt
Plaintiff
Kevin J. Murphy
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT HUNT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv1160-MHT

) (WO)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY, )

and KEVIN J. MURPHY, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

This lawsuit is now before the court on a motion for

summary judgment filed by defendants City of Montgomery

and Kevin J. Murphy. Summary judgment is appropriate “if

the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Under Rule 56, the party seeking summary judgment must

first inform the court of the basis for the motion, at

Case 2:05-cv-01160-MHT-VPM Document 19 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 5
2

which point the burden then shifts to the non-moving

party to demonstrate why summary judgment would not be

proper. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323

(1986); see also Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d

1112, 1115-17 (11th Cir. 1993) (discussing burdenshifting under Rule 56). The non-moving party must

affirmatively set forth specific facts showing a genuine

issue for trial and may not rest upon the mere

allegations or denials in the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(e).

In this case, the defendants’ evidence in support of

their motion for summary judgment has gone unopposed by

plaintiff Scott Hunt. Because that evidence establishes

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, summary

judgment will be granted.

The evidence before the court reflects that Hunt, a

police officer employed by the City of Montgomery, was

involved in an altercation with fellow officers some time

before December 28, 2004, and that over the next ten days

Case 2:05-cv-01160-MHT-VPM Document 19 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 5
3

he provided statements to the police department’s

internal affairs unit investigating that incident. As a

result of that investigation, which was initiated by

Murphy in his supervisory capacity in the Montgomery

Police Department, Hunt was given a ten-day suspension,

while four other officers involved were terminated.

Hunt’s next encounter with the internal affairs unit

occurred in May 2005, after he used mace to subdue a

suspect in a domestic disturbance and failed to show

probable cause for doing so in an incident report he

wrote. Again, Murphy initiated an investigation into the

matter. Hunt gave another statement in connection with

that investigation on May 31, 2005, and resigned from the

police department three days later.

In his complaint, Hunt alleges that the May 2005

investigation by internal affairs was in fact retaliation

by the defendants for the statements Hunt made during the

December 2004/January 2005 investigation, and that Hunt’s

freedom of speech rights under the First and Fourteenth

Case 2:05-cv-01160-MHT-VPM Document 19 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 5
1. In fact, Hunt’s complaint alleges that the

defendants wanted Hunt to speak out more forcefully

against his fellow officers during the December

2004/January 2005 investigation, and that they initiated

the May 2005 investigation to punish him for not doing

so.

2. The defendants also argue that, even if Hunt’s

allegations as set out in his complaint were true, relief

is foreclosed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision

in Garcetti v. Ceballos, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 1951

(2006) (holding that the government does not violate the

First Amendment when, in its capacity as employer, it

disciplines public employees for statements made in the

course of their official duties). The court declines to

reach that issue, since the case is easily disposed of

through summary judgment on the basis of evidence that

Hunt was not, in fact, punished for any statements he

made.

4

Amendments were violated when the city punished him for

those statements.1

 However, the evidence submitted by the

defendants reflects that the May 2005 investigation was

neither improper nor related to the December 2004/January

2005 investigation, and Hunt has offered no evidence to

the contrary.2

It is therefore plain that no genuine issue of

material fact exists as to the circumstances surrounding

Hunt’s separation from the Montgomery Police Department.

Based on the facts in evidence, neither the city nor

Case 2:05-cv-01160-MHT-VPM Document 19 Filed 09/08/06 Page 4 of 5
Murphy violated Hunt’s free-speech rights, and Hunt

cannot obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

defendants are accordingly entitled to judgment as a

matter of law, and their motion for summary judgment will

be granted.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 8th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01160-MHT-VPM Document 19 Filed 09/08/06 Page 5 of 5