NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0776n.06 No. 08-6495 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
WI LLIA M T. D AV IS, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. CI TY OF M UR F RE ESBOR O, Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L FR OM THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT CO UR T F OR

THE M ID DL E DI STR IC T OF TEN NE SSEE O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: SUH RH EIN RI CH , M c KEA G UE , a nd K ETHL ED G E, C ir c uitJudg e s. Per Cu ri a m. This is an appe al from a ma g istrate judg e’s or der g ranting the City of Murf re e sb or o’ s mo tio n f

or su mma ry jud g me nt i n Wil liam D a vis ’s § 1 98 3 a c tio n a lle g ingthat c ity officia ls deprived him of his Fir st Amendment rig hts by servingan administrative ins p ection wa rra nt on him in retaliation for filing state lawsuits. On Dec ember 28, 2003, Murfre esboro Police Offic er A nthony Whit ehea d saw a

loose dog run t hroug h an open f

ront door into Davis’s c ondominium. Upon approac hing a nd then enter ing the
c on do in o rd e r t o c he c k o n th e he a lthof the re sid e nts , Wh itehead enco un te re d a n “ a lmo st
un be ara ble ” sme ll a

nd fo un d a n a pa rtme nt i n “ c omp le te dis arr ay ,” po pu la te d b y sic k- loo kin g c a ts
and c ov e re d w ithfe c e s and tr ash
. Th e An ima l Co ntr ol o ff ic e rs wh o a

rr ive d in re sp on se to Whit e he a d’ s r e po rt

fo un d “ do g fe c e s, c a t f

e c e s, and a ll k ind s o f u

ri ne a ll o ve r t

he c arp e ts, ” sic k c a ts without a ny water , and – most star

tlingly – over one hundred de ad cats, along with a dea d dog andNo. 08-6495

W ill iam Da v is v . Ci ty

of M ur fre esb or o

- 2 - five de ad snake s, in the condominium’s free zers. Se e Sta te v . D av is , 2005 WL 2255968, at *1-*3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 15, 2005). Codes I nspector Monty Kapavik of the Murfr eesbor o Building and Codes De partment (“ Depa rtment”) de clar ed Davis’s home unhabitable a nd issued a re pa ir

o r der. Davis ultimately pled g uilty to one count of c ruelty

to animals, see id. a t *1, but c on tin ue d to c on te st the validity

of the 2003 sea

rche s; he also launche d a s er i es o f l awsuits ag ainst various city and
c ounty of fi c ia ls a nd de pa rtme nts . O nc e Da

vis ’s le g a l c ha lle ng e to t

he se arc he s w a s c on c lud e d in 2005, the Depa

rtment beg an insisting on re in s p ec t i n g Davis’s c ondo. I n J uly of 2006, Chief Building Offic ial Be tts B arbie r Nix on obtained an administrative inspec tion warra nt to searc h the bu ild ing . K a

pavik e xec ute d th e wa

rr ant, e nte re d th e a

pa rtme nt, an d th en is su e d a re vis e d r e pa ir order . I n response , Davis brought thi s suit, alleg ing that the sea rch a nd resulting repa ir notice we re
a c ts o f r e ta liatio n a g a ins t hi m becau se he ha d b ro ug ht h is e arl ie r l aws uit s, and we re an atte mpt

to preve nt him from continuing to exerc ise his First Amendment r ights. I n two memoranda , on September 29, 2008 and Oc tober 28, 2008, Mag istrate Judge Juliet Griff in gr anted the City ’s motion for summary judgme nt, concludingthat Davis could not show the third element of a reta liation c laim, that the Depa rtment’s ac tions were motived at least in part by Davis’s ex erc ise of his constitutional rights in bring ing state lawsuits. Se e, e .g ., J e nk ins v . R oc k

Hi ll Loc al S c ho ol D ist
. , 5 13 F .3 d 5 80 , 5 86 (6 th Cir
. 20 08 ). “ Ev e n . . . vie we d in t he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the plaintiff,” Judge Griff in concluded, “t h ere is simpl y insufficient e vidence . . . showing the exis tence of a c ausal c onnection betwe en the plaintiff’s pursuit of a lawsuit ag ainst the City and the
e nf or c e me nt ac tio n tak e n ag a ins t him by the B uil din g Cod e s De pa rtme nt. No re a so na

ble jur y c ou ld find in favor

of the plaintiff if this cla im procee ded to tr ial.” (Ma g istrate Judge Me mo, October 28,No. 08-6495

W ill iam Da v is v . Ci ty

of M ur fre esb or o

- 3 - 2008, at 6.) Davis now appea ling, arg uing that while “it is simply impossibl e” for him “to provide the ty pe of dire ct evidenc e that mig ht be consider ed a ‘ smokin g gu n [ , ] ’” (Pl. Br. at 7), he ha s prese nte d s uf

fi c ie nt circumstantial e v id e n c e to p e r mi t a r e a s o n a

b le ju r y to c o n c lu d e tha t such a
c a us a l c on ne c tio n e xists
. Ha vin g du ly c on sid e re d D a vis ’s a

pp e llate argume nts , we fi nd Da vis ’s a pp e a l to be me ri tle ss. Davis’s a rg uments were fa i rl y and ade quately addre ssed in J udg e Gr iffin’s Oc tober 28, 2008 memorandum g ranting the City of Murfr eesbor o’s motion f o r s u m m ar y

judgme nt. Be cause the issua n c e o f a f u ll o p in io n w o u ld s e r

v e n o ju r is p r u d e n ti a l p u r

p o s e an d w o u ld b e d

u p li c a tive, we AF F IRM on the basis of the ma g istrate judg e’s memor andum the dismissal of this action.