Court Opinion

ID: 9894776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 21:01:03.251569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:34.447408
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001      Doc: 31             Filed: 11/01/2023   Pg: 1 of 11

                                                UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                  No. 19-1001

        CALVIN HOAGLAND, Skip,

                      Plaintiff - Appellant,

        v.

        DAVID BENNETT, Individually and as Mayor of the Town of Hilton Head Island;
        BILL HARKINS, Individually and as a Member of the Town of Hilton Head Island
        Council and as Mayor Pro Tem of the Town of Hilton Head Island; KIM LIKINS,
        Individually and as a Member of the Town of Hilton Head Island Council; LEE
        EDWARDS, Individually and as a Member of the Town of Hilton Head Island
        Council; JOHN MCCANN, Individually and as a Member of the Town of Hilton
        Head Island Council; TOM LENNOX, Individually and as a Member of the Town
        of Hilton Head Island Council; MARC GRANT, Individually and as a Member of
        the Town of Hilton Head Island Council,

                      Defendants - Appellees,

        and

        STEVE RILEY, Individually and as Town of Hilton Head Island Manager; BRIAN
        HULBERT, Individually and as Town of Hilton Head Island Attorney,

                      Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (9:17−cv−01374−RMG)

        Argued: September 19, 2023                                     Decided: November 1, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001      Doc: 31         Filed: 11/01/2023    Pg: 2 of 11

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ARGUED: Taylor Meriwether Smith, IV, HARRISON & RADEKER, PA, Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellant. Hugh W. Buyck, BUYCK LAW FIRM, LLC, Mount
        Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Barrett R. Brewer, BREWER LAW
        FIRM, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001       Doc: 31         Filed: 11/01/2023    Pg: 3 of 11

        PER CURIAM:

               Calvin “Skip” Hoagland appeals the district court’s order granting summary

        judgment to Defendants—members of Hilton Head Island’s Town Council—on

        Hoagland’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law abuse of process claims. Because the Council

        members are entitled to qualified immunity on Hoagland’s § 1983 claim and because

        Hoagland failed to put forward evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material

        fact as to whether the Council members are liable under Hoagland’s abuse of process claim,

        we affirm the district court’s order.

                                                     I.

               Hoagland is a resident of Florida and operates Beaufortwatchdog.org, which he

        alleges is dedicated to advancing transparency and exposing corruption in government.

        David Bennett, Bill Harkins, Kim Likins, Lee Edwards, John McCann, Tom Lennox and

        Marc Grant were, at all relevant times, Hilton Head Island Town Council members. Around

        July 2015, Hoagland began to lobby the Council members to vote against a contract

        recognizing the Hilton Head-Bluffton Chamber of Commerce as Hilton Head’s designated

        marketing organization. Hoagland also sought to have the Council require a forensic audit

        of the Chamber. After Likins declined to meet with Hoagland about his advocacy,

        Hoagland emailed her employer—the Boys and Girls Club—threatening to have her

        “publicly disgraced to all in this community” and “booted off town council and removed

        from the Boys and Girls club for violating the public trust” if she voted against an audit.

        J.A. 141. According to Hoagland’s email, anyone voting against an audit was “corrupted

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001       Doc: 31        Filed: 11/01/2023      Pg: 4 of 11

        or totally incompetent.” J.A. 141. In another email, Hoagland stated that Likins “need[ed]

        to set a better example for Boys and Girls or perhaps [she] need[ed] to be replaced from

        that job as well.” J.A. 143.

               After Likins voted to approve the contract with the Chamber of Commerce,

        Hoagland called the Boys and Girls Club’s Board President, demanding Likins be fired

        “because she was a liar and was unfit to be around children.” J.A. 102. Hoagland also called

        another Boys and Girls Club employee to relay that Likins was “very, very dangerous” and

        that the Club “need[ed] to fire her right now.” J.A. 192. In an email to many recipients,

        Hoagland spoke directly to Likins, stating that she lied and was not fit to serve on the Town

        Council and was “not fit to serve boys and girls [as] well.” J.A. 208. Hoagland also began

        running advertisements in local papers to publicly disgrace Likins and other Council

        members. And on December 3, 2015, Hoagland emailed Likins and another person, stating

        “[w]e do not need a [sic] anyone who lies and has conflict leading our boys and girls club

        or serving on town council. Kim I expect two things you either resign or are terminated. I

        can assure you one of the two will happen.” J.A. 224.

               On December 10, 2015, Likins sued Hoagland in state court, alleging intentional

        infliction of emotional distress, defamation, intrusion into private affairs and interference

        with her employment. The complaint alleged that Hoagland had “engaged in an extended

        course of attacking and maligning Town Council and, in particular [Likins]” through “a

        persistent campaign of verbally abusing, defaming, and threatening [Likins] and taking

        other action to harm [her].” J.A. 197–98.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001      Doc: 31         Filed: 11/01/2023     Pg: 5 of 11

               Five days later, on December 15, 2015, Hoagland appeared at a Town Council

        meeting and addressed the Council members. At the beginning of Hoagland’s remarks,

        Bennett interrupted him for roughly eleven seconds to ask him to refrain from personal

        attacks and discussions about pending litigation. Undeterred, Hoagland completed his

        prepared remarks, which lasted roughly three minutes.

               After Hoagland completed his comments, Bennett noted “that his understanding of

        Town Code is that only citizens of Hilton Head Island can approach and discuss a matter

        with Council and since Mr. Hoagland is not a citizen of the Island, and until such time that

        a majority of Council overturns his decision, Mr. Hoagland will not be invited or allowed

        back to speak before Council.” J.A. 236. At the end of the December 15 meeting, the Town

        Council went into executive session and considered “a resolution authorizing the retention

        and payment for personal counsel to protect council members through appropriate legal

        process from improper and/or unlawful harassment by third parties.” J.A. 239. With Likins

        recusing herself from the vote due to a conflict of interest, the motion was approved.

               At the next Town Council meeting in January 2016, Hoagland once again appeared

        and attempted to speak. After a recess, the Council members voted to allow Hoagland to

        speak, and he completed his remarks in full.

               Later, Hoagland filed the operative amended complaint in federal court following

        removal from state court by the Council members. Hoagland asserted causes of actions for

        abuse of process, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, a First Amendment claim

        brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as requests for declaratory judgment and

        injunctive relief from the Council members’ support and funding of the Likins litigation.

                                                       5
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001      Doc: 31         Filed: 11/01/2023     Pg: 6 of 11

               Following discovery, the Council members moved to dismiss or, in the alternative,

        for summary judgment, in part, on qualified immunity grounds. The district court granted

        the Council members’ motion for summary judgment on all of Hoagland’s claims. The

        court granted summary judgment on Hoagland’s § 1983 claim because the “evidence d[id]

        not reflect that [Hoagland’s] constitutional right to free speech was violated,” which

        “supports finding [the Council members] have qualified immunity.” J.A. 491. In making

        that determination, the court found that the record demonstrated that “[Hoagland] presented

        his comments in full” at both meetings. It also reasoned that “the Likins lawsuit was not

        initiated to chill [Hoagland’s] speech, but rather in response to [Hoagland’s] threats to

        publicly disgrace Likins.” J.A. 490. The district court also granted summary judgment on

        Hoagland’s state law abuse of process claim concluding that “[a] reasonable fact finder

        would not conclude from the record that the Likins lawsuit was initiated and funded under

        the council indemnity Resolution for a legally improper purpose, such as to chill

        [Hoagland’s] free speech.” J.A. 491. 1

               After the district court denied Hoagland’s motion for reconsideration, this appeal

        followed.

               1
                The district court also dismissed the claims not at issue in this appeal. First, it
        dismissed Hoagland’s malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy claims because
        Hoagland failed to point to evidence supporting critical elements of the causes of action.
        Second, the court denied Hoagland’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief because
        a reasonable fact finder “would not conclude . . . that [the Council members’] alleged
        conduct is unlawful.” J.A 492–93.

                                                    6
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001      Doc: 31          Filed: 11/01/2023     Pg: 7 of 11

                                                     II.

               We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Ballengee v. CBS

        Broad., Inc., 968 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2020). We apply the same legal standards as the

        district court, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the

        nonmoving party. Id.

                                                     A.

               Hoagland first contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment

        on his § 1983 claim for violating his free speech rights. Hoagland argues that the district

        court failed to properly analyze the Council members’ actions as retaliation. 2 Hoagland

        points to two allegedly retaliatory acts: (1) the interruption and initial prevention of

        Hoagland’s speech at the December 15, 2015, and January 19, 2016, Town Council

        meetings and (2) the filing and funding of the Likins litigation. The Council members

        respond that Hoagland was permitted to complete his remarks to the Town Council at both

        meetings and that any comments from the Council members about the remarks and delays

        in his presentation were both de minimis and the result of reasonable time, place and

        manner regulations. The Council members further argue that the Likins litigation was not

        intended to chill protected speech but to prevent harassment and defamation from

               2
                 To show a violation of the First Amendment under a retaliation theory, Hoagland
        must establish three things: (1) that he “engaged in protected First Amendment activity,”
        (2) that the Council members “took some action that adversely affected [his] First
        Amendment rights,” and (3) that “there was a causal relationship between [his] protected
        activity and the [Council members’] conduct.” Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George
        Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 499 (4th Cir. 2005).

                                                      7
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001      Doc: 31          Filed: 11/01/2023     Pg: 8 of 11

        Hoagland. Also, they argue they were entitled to summary judgment on the First

        Amendment claims based on the doctrine of qualified immunity.

               Beginning with qualified immunity, that doctrine “protects government officials

        from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

        statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Martin

        v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 251 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). 3 To determine

        whether qualified immunity shields the Council members, we must consider whether (1)

        the facts “make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) whether that right was

        “clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Sheppard v.

        Visitors of Va. State Univ., 993 F.3d 230, 238 (4th Cir. 2021). We may “skip ahead to the

        question whether the law clearly established that the [Council members’] conduct was

        unlawful in the circumstances of the case.” Brown v. Elliott, 876 F.3d 637, 641 (4th Cir.

        2017) (internal quotations omitted).

               Hoagland submits that “[c]ourts have found that the rights established by the First

        Amendment with regard to retaliatory action are well-established rights, of which a

        reasonable person would and should know.” Op. Br. 24 (emphasis omitted). But for

               3
                  We recognize Hoagland initially sought declaratory and injunctive relief in
        addition to monetary damages. However, Likins apparently withdrew all causes of action
        except for a permanent injunction against Hoagland, which the trial court denied,
        effectively ending the Likins litigation. See Likins v. Hoagland, Op. No. 2015-CP-07-2937
        (Beaufort County, Common Pleas filed Aug. 4, 2020) (unpublished order). The appellate
        court affirmed that resolution. Likins v. Hoagland, Op. No. 2020-001126, 2023 WL
        4927392 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Aug. 2, 2023). So any injunctive relief related to the Likins
        litigation is moot. Moreover, Hoagland did not discuss declaratory or injunctive relief on
        appeal.
                                                      8
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001       Doc: 31          Filed: 11/01/2023    Pg: 9 of 11

        purposes of qualified immunity, we “must not define clearly established law at a high level

        of generality” because “the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of

        particular conduct is clearly established.” Halcomb v. Ravenell, 992 F.3d 316, 319–20 (4th

        Cir. 2021) (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015)). Hoagland’s argument

        involves the “high level of generality” that we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly said

        is improper. Halcomb, 992 F.3d at 320; see District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48,

        63–64 (2018) (defining the right at a high level of generality “avoids the crucial question

        whether the official acted reasonably in the particular circumstances that he or she faced”);

        White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (explaining that without referencing the particular

        facts of the case, “plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity into a

        rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract

        facts”) (cleaned up).

               We are aware of no authority clearly establishing that the Council members’

        conduct that Hoagland complains to be retaliatory violates his First Amendment rights. In

        fact, Hoagland’s counsel conceded at oral argument that no cases support a clearly

        established right in this specific context.

               In his briefs, Hoagland cites only three cases: Tindal v. Montgomery County

        Commission, 32 F.3d 1535 (11th Cir. 1994), McCloud v. Testa, 97 F.3d 1536 (6th Cir.

        1997) and Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, 789 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 2015). But none of these

        cases involve momentary delays or interruptions at public meetings or filing and funding

        litigation seeking to stop defamation and harassment. In particular, Hoagland’s only

        within-circuit citation, Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, involved three lower-ranking police

                                                      9
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001       Doc: 31          Filed: 11/01/2023      Pg: 10 of 11

        officers who were fired allegedly in response to concerns they raised about the behavior of

        the town’s police chief. Id. at 394–95. That case would not have put the Council members

        on notice that their conduct here violated Hoagland’s First Amendment rights.

               Hoagland’s two out-of-circuit citations fare no better. It is true that even with no

        controlling authority, we may look to a “‘consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ from

        other jurisdictions, if such exists.” Owens ex rel. Owens v. Lott, 372 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir.

        2004) (quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 617 (1999)). But the two cases he cites,

        neither of which involves facts similar to those at issue here, cannot create the consensus

        we require for a right to be clearly established.

               Because the law does not clearly establish that Council members’ conduct violated

        Hoagland’s asserted First Amendment rights, the Council members are entitled to qualified

        immunity on Hoagland’s § 1983 claim.

                                                      B.

               Hoagland next contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment

        to the Council members on his state law abuse of process claim. A South Carolina abuse

        of process claim arises out of a “party’s misuse of the legal system.” Pallares v. Seinar,

        756 S.E.2d 128, 133 (S.C. 2014). The two elements of an abuse of process claim are (1)

        “an ulterior purpose” and (2) “a willful act in the use of the process that is not proper in the

        regular conduct of the proceeding.” Id. An ulterior purpose exists if the improper

        motivation is the “sole or paramount reason for acting.” Id. at 134 (citation omitted). Only

        a defendant who uses a legal process against another “primarily to accomplish a purpose

        for which it is not designed, is subject to liability for harm caused by abuse of process.” Id.

                                                      10
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1001      Doc: 31         Filed: 11/01/2023     Pg: 11 of 11

        at 133–34 (emphasis in original). A willful act does not exist when a defendant “carr[ies]

        out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.” Hainer v.

        Am. Med. Int’l, Inc., 492 S.E.2d 103, 107 (S.C. 1997). Upon review of the record and the

        parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court that Hoagland has not pointed to

        evidence that creates a genuine dispute of material fact as to the “ulterior purpose” or

        “willful act” necessary to support an abuse of process claim. Therefore, we affirm the

        district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Council members on this claim.

                                                    III.

               The Council members are entitled to qualified immunity from Hoagland’s

        retaliation claim. The Council members did not violate Hoagland’s clearly established

        rights to be free from retaliation in the forms of momentary interruptions and delays of his

        speech at public meetings or of filing and funding a lawsuit seeking to prevent defamation

        and harassment. Additionally, Hoagland failed to put forward sufficient evidence to show

        that the Council members are liable under an abuse of process claim. Accordingly, the

        district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Council members is

                                                                                      AFFIRMED.

                                                    11