Court Opinion

ID: 9411818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 00:01:08.294881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:14.562636
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60733    Document: 00516836899       Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                              ____________                                 FILED
                                                                       July 27, 2023
                                No. 21-60733                          Lyle W. Cayce
                              ____________                                 Clerk

   Robin Mayfield; Owen Mayfield; William Mayfield;
   Estate of Mark Stevens Mayfield,

                                                        Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                    versus

   Butler Snow, L.L.P.; Donald Clark, Jr.; City of
   Madison, Mississippi; Mary Hawkins-Butler, individually
   and in her Official Capacity; Police Chief Gene Waldrop,
   Individually and in his Official Capacity; Chuck Harrison, Individually
   and in his Official Capacity; Vickie Currie, Individually and in her
   Official Capacity; John and Jane Does 1-10; Richard
   Wilbourn, III,

                                                     Defendants—Appellees,

   Dale Danks, Jr.; Janet Danks; Jordan Russell; Quinton
   Dickerson,

                                            Movants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Mississippi
                           USDC No. 3:17-CV-514
                 ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Ho and Engelhardt, Circuit
   Judges.
Case: 21-60733           Document: 00516836899              Page: 2       Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                            No. 21-60733

   Per Curiam: *
           Mark Mayfield was arrested for being part of a scheme to take a
   picture of Senator Thad Cochran’s late wife, Rose Cochran, in the privacy of
   her nursing room home. One month later, Mayfield was found dead in his
   home, seemingly from suicide. 1 His widow, sons, and estate filed a complaint
   alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as well as various tort claims against state
   and private actors involved in his arrest and prosecution. The complaint
   alleges that Mayfield was subject to a politically motivated prosecution that
   deprived him of his constitutional rights, shut down his law practice, and
   humiliated him and his family, causing severe emotional distress—all of
   which directly led to his suicide.
           Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. Excluding one—a
   Lozman claim against the City of Madison and Mayor Hawkins-Butler—the
   district court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims. 2 After discovery, the district
   court granted summary judgment for the City of Madison and Mayor
   Hawkins-Butler, finding that Plaintiffs could not prove the required elements
   of their Lozman claim. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their claims, the
   summary judgment on their Lozman claim, and several orders regarding
   expert testimony and discovery. We affirm.

           _____________________
           *
            Judge Ho concurs in the judgment only, in light of Mayfield v. Currie, 976 F.3d
   482 (5th Cir. 2020), and Gonzalez v. Trevino, 42 F.4th 487 (5th Cir. 2022). See also
   Gonzalez v. Trevino, 60 F.4th 906, 907 (5th Cir. 2023) (Ho, J., dissenting from denial of
   rehearing en banc) (disagreeing with Mayfield and Gonzalez).
           1
           The death was ruled a suicide, but “Plaintiffs find it difficult to concede a suicide”
   even though they assume it for the purposes of this appeal.
           2
               See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 138 S. Ct. 1945 (2018).

                                                   2
Case: 21-60733      Document: 00516836899          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                    No. 21-60733

                                         I.
          This is the second time this case has come before us on appeal. See
   Mayfield v. Currie, 976 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2020). The facts of this case were
   well stated by our court’s previous opinion, and we summarize them here.
          In 2014, Tea Party candidate Chris McDaniel challenged Senator
   Thad Cochran in the tightly contested Mississippi Senate Republican Pri-
   mary. McDaniel supporters believed that Senator Cochran was having an
   extramarital affair with his assistant, Kay Webber, and sought to make it a
   campaign issue. At the time, Senator Cochran’s wife, Rose Cochran, was
   suffering from progressive dementia and was bedridden in a Mississippi nurs-
   ing home.
          John Mary along with other McDaniel supporters hatched a plan to
   sneak into Rose Cochran’s nursing home room to take a photo of her. The
   goal was to juxtapose a photo of her with the younger Kay Webber, to support
   allegations of Senator Cochran’s infidelity.
          These individuals reached out to a fellow McDaniel supporter, Mark
   Mayfield. Mayfield frequently visited the nursing home because his mother
   was also a resident there.
          Mayfield refused to take the photo of Rose Cochran himself. But he
   explained where her room was to the other McDaniel supporters because he
   believed guests routinely visited the residents.
          Relying on Mayfield’s directions, Clayton Kelly snuck into the nurs-
   ing home and took a photo of Rose Cochran in her room. Kelly incorporated
   the photo into a public YouTube video. Kelly removed the video a few hours
   later due to negative reactions, including from other McDaniel supporters.
          Senator Cochran’s team saw the YouTube video and contacted Butler
   Snow, the law firm that served as counsel to Senator Cochran’s campaign
   and his family. A lawyer at Butler Snow, Don Clark, brought the video to the
   attention of the Mayor of Madison and the Madison Chief of Police.

                                          3
Case: 21-60733      Document: 00516836899           Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                     No. 21-60733

           Officers Chuck Harrison and Vickie Currie were assigned to the case.
   They prepared and submitted warrant applications for the search and arrest
   of Clayton Kelly for violating a subsection of Mississippi’s Abuse, Neglect,
   and Exploitation statute that makes the willful infliction of physical pain or
   injury on a vulnerable person a felony. See Miss. Code Ann. § 43-47-
   19(3). There’s no evidence Kelly physically injured Rose Cochran, but the
   citation to that specific subsection may have been a typographical error—
   subsection (2)(b) criminalizes the willful exploitation of a vulnerable person
   when the exploitation has monetary value. Kelly gave officers permission to
   search his Facebook and YouTube accounts, which implicated other McDan-
   iel supporters involved in the scheme. Further investigation revealed Face-
   book messages that implicated Mayfield’s participation. Based on these mes-
   sages, Harrison and Currie submitted search and arrest warrant affidavits for
   Mayfield, each of which cited either Miss. Code Ann. § 43-47-19(3) or
   Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-63, a statute prohibiting the posting of mes-
   sages through electronic media for the purpose of causing injury to any per-
   son with lewd intent. See Gilmer v. State, 955 So.2d 829, 840 (Miss. 2007)
   (holding that lewd intent is a necessary element of an offense under Miss.
   Code Ann. § 97-29-63). A magistrate judge issued the warrants on May
   22, 2014. Mayfield was arrested at his office the same day.
           Mayfield was subject to significant news coverage and lost his largest
   client. He was also forced to stop his political activities for the Tea Party and
   the McDaniel campaign. On June 24, 2014, Senator Cochran won his runoff
   race.
           Three days later, Mayfield committed suicide.
           A year later, the Madison County Circuit Court entered a judgment
   of conviction against Clayton Kelly for conspiring to commit burglary of a

                                          4
Case: 21-60733           Document: 00516836899            Page: 5    Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                           No. 21-60733

   dwelling. Additionally, John Mary entered a guilty plea of conspiracy to vio-
   late Miss. Code Ann. § 97-45-17.
             After Mayfield’s death, his widow, sons, and estate filed their
   complaint against Defendants. Their claims included a § 1983 claim, a Bivens
   claim, and various state tort claims against private parties, the local
   municipality, and government and law enforcement officials involved in
   Mayfield’s arrest. 3 All were dismissed except a Lozman claim against the
   City of Madison and Mayor Hawkins-Butler.
                                                II.
                                                A.
             This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to
   state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Ghedi v. Mayorkas, 16 F.4th 456, 463 (5th
   Cir. 2021).
             Plaintiffs claim that Butler Snow and Don Clark, by initiating a police
   report, participated in a retaliatory prosecution against Mayfield for the
   exercise of his First Amendment rights. All parties agree that this claim turns
   on whether Butler Snow and Clark had probable cause to initiate a police
   report. The district court found that probable cause was evident from the
   amended complaint. The amended complaint states that a photo of Rose
   Cochran was taken without permission, which could suggest trespass or
   breaking and entering. The district court did not err in dismissing the claims
   against Butler Snow and Don Clark.

             _____________________
             3
                 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
   (1971).

                                                5
Case: 21-60733        Document: 00516836899             Page: 6      Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                         No. 21-60733

           Plaintiffs additionally brought § 1983 claims against Officer Vickie
   Currie and Officer Chuck Harrison. 4 Officer Currie got a warrant for
   Mayfield’s arrest, and Officer Harrison got a warrant to search his home and
   workplace.
           As this court has previously noted, Plaintiffs brought claims under
   multiple provisions of the Constitution, including but not limited to the First
   and Fourth Amendments. See Mayfield, 976 F.3d at 486 n.1. But this court
   concluded that “Plaintiff-Appellees’ claims against Officer Currie . . . fall
   under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. As that opinion explained, “in order to
   bring a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest, a plaintiff generally
   must first show the absence of probable cause for the arrest, i.e., a Fourth
   Amendment violation.” Id. (citing Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019)).
           So Plaintiffs need to allege that Mayfield was arrested and searched
   without probable cause. “Probable cause exists when the totality of facts and
   circumstances within a police officer’s knowledge at the moment of arrest are
   sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed
   or was committing an offense.” Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369, 375 (5th
   Cir. 2013) (emphasis and quotation marks omitted). In this case, Plaintiffs
   claim they can defeat probable cause and overcome qualified immunity by
   showing a harm under either Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), or Franks
   v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
           Under Malley, “an officer can be held liable for a search authorized by
   a warrant when the affidavit presented to the magistrate was ‘so lacking in
   indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence

           _____________________
           4
            The district court dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Police Chief Gene
   Waldrop because the amended complaint did not specify any claim against him. Plaintiffs
   do not contest this dismissal in their appellate briefing.

                                               6
Case: 21-60733      Document: 00516836899          Page: 7    Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                    No. 21-60733

   unreasonable.’” Mayfield, 976 F.3d at 487–88 (quoting Malley, 475 U.S. at
   344-45). This court’s previous decision in this case held that there is no
   Malley harm here because there were other affidavits that supported the
   arrest warrant. 976 F.3d at 487–88. But that decision remanded to the
   district court to address the Franks claim.
          Under Franks, an officer who “deliberately or recklessly provide[s]
   false, material information for use in an affidavit” in support of a warrant or
   who “who makes knowing and intentional omissions that result in a warrant
   being issued without probable cause” is liable. Melton v. Phillips, 875 F.3d
   256, 264 (5th Cir. 2017). On remand, the district court found there was no
   Franks harm, a finding we now affirm.
          Plaintiffs argue there was a Franks violation because the Officers
   withheld evidence that Mayfield didn’t have the requisite intent to trespass
   or invade Rose Cochran’s privacy. While its arguable that Mayfield did not
   meet the intent element of the specific statute cited, that’s not enough to
   overcome qualified immunity. The allegations establishing the conspirators
   wanted a “good, clear picture” admit an intent to enter into Rose Cochran’s
   room and take her picture. And, as the district court noted, Plaintiffs “have
   not produced a single similar case where a court denied qualified immunity
   based on a difference of opinion about criminal intent.” Mayfield v. Butler
   Snow, LLP, 2021 WL 3642038, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 17, 2021). The district
   court did not err in dismissing the claims under § 1983.
          Finally, Plaintiffs brought numerous state tort actions against Officer
   Currie and Harrison, which were all dismissed by the district court. On
   appeal, Plaintiffs only challenge the district court’s dismissal of their civil
   conspiracy claim. The district court was correct in dismissing Plaintiffs’
   claim for civil conspiracy because it was not timely.         Moreover, civil
   conspiracy is a derivative claim that depends on some underlying wrong. See

                                         7
Case: 21-60733      Document: 00516836899           Page: 8   Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                     No. 21-60733

   Wells v. Shelter Gen. Ins. Co., 217 F.Supp.2d 744, 755 (S.D. Miss. 2002)
   (applying Mississippi law; collecting cases). To the extent that Plaintiffs do
   not appeal the dismissal of the state law tort claims, their civil conspiracy
   claim cannot proceed. To the extent that Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim
   relies on their federal § 1983 claim, their civil conspiracy claim cannot
   proceed because the § 1983 claim was correctly dismissed.
          The district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against
   the Defendants in this case.
                                         B.
          A district court’s ruling on a summary judgment motion is reviewed
   de novo. Correa v. Fischer, 982 F.2d 931, 932 (5th Cir. 1993). Summary
   judgment is appropriate only when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
   material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
          Plaintiffs’ only claim to survive the motion to dismiss stage was their
   Lozman claim against the City of Madison and Mayor Hawkins-Butler. After
   discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the City of
   Madison and its Mayor. Plaintiffs’ theory was that the City of Madison
   pursued Mayfield in retaliation for his political activities at the direction of
   the Mayor.
          The Supreme Court held in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 138
   S. Ct. 1945 (2018), that a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim against a
   municipality may survive despite the presence of probable cause under
   certain circumstances. In such cases, there’s a difficult evidentiary burden
   that Plaintiffs do not meet. In Lozman, there was extensive evidence the city
   council used city resources to intimidate the plaintiff because of his speech,
   including a meeting transcript enshrining that plan as official municipal

                                          8
Case: 21-60733      Document: 00516836899           Page: 9    Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                     No. 21-60733

   policy and a video of a city council member directing the plaintiff’s arrest. Id.
   at 1949–50. Not so here.
          Here, Plaintiffs’ best evidence merely establishes that the City of
   Madison was aggressively pursuing those who committed a potential
   invasion of the privacy of an incapacitated adult. The evidence doesn’t show
   that the City carried out the investigation, arrest, search, or prosecution
   because of Mayfield’s political views, which the Plaintiffs needed to show to
   succeed. The same is true of the Mayor: Although some evidence in the
   record suggests she knew the conspirators were McDaniel supporters, other
   evidence clarifies that she was not responsible for the prosecutorial decisions
   of the District Attorney’s Office.       The district court properly granted
   summary judgment for the City of Madison and its Mayor.
                                          C.
          Plaintiffs also appeal the district court’s ruling regarding an expert
   witness as well as various discovery orders issued by a magistrate judge.
          Regarding the expert witness, the district court barred Plaintiffs from
   bringing Michael Lyman to give expert testimony on the absence of probable
   clause. Lyman’s testimony is an inadmissible legal opinion. The district
   court did not err in striking Plaintiffs’ expert witness.
          Plaintiffs also appeal the magistrate judge’s discovery orders.
   Plaintiffs must show that the court abused its discretion in denying a
   discovery motion. Atkinson v. Denton Pub. Co., 84 F. 3d 144, 147 (5th Cir.
   1996). However, this court need not conduct that analysis. Plaintiffs
   challenge discovery orders made by a magistrate judge. At no point did the
   district court judge ever consider the discovery issues raised by the Plaintiffs.
   “The law is settled that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear
   appeals directly from federal magistrates.” United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d
   497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

                                           9
Case: 21-60733   Document: 00516836899       Page: 10   Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                              No. 21-60733

                                 ***
         We affirm.

                                  10