Eeek -- what a stressful way written in the KY Commonwealth to run a County Sheriff's Office!
A state-mandated tax settlement at the end of an outgoing sheriff ’s term coupled with late mineral tax bills issued by the state means Sheriff-elect Mickey Stines will be seriously shorthanded and seriously short on money when he takes office on January 7. Stines said the transition from...
www.themountaineagle.com
Take note that Stines was first elected Sheriff during the Nov 2018 election, and was sworn into office in January 2019.
Appending my earlier post about how "State law says an outgoing sheriff must make a settlement — pay off all bills and remit all collected taxes — at the end of his term," which resulted in the outgoing Sheriff Webb terminating three County staff members: Congleton, Sloan, and Engle, effective December 13, 2018, due to year end budget constraints.
When former employee Congleton, who openly and aggressively campaigned for Stines opponents for Sheriff during the May 2018 primary, and November 2018 general election, was not rehired after applying for a Job with the County Sheriff's Office after Stines took office, she filed a civil lawsuit against Stines, Individually, and in his official capacity as Letcher County Sheriff.
The Civil Complaint was filed in US District Court - Eastern District of Kentucky, asserting two constitutional claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
First, Congleton asserted that Sheriff Stines violated her First Amendment rights by failing to hire her as a deputy in retaliation for her political support of Stines' opponents. Second, she asserted a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congleton did not prevail in her lawsuit. Instead, Stines filed a Motion for Summary Judgement, and the Court granted his Motion on June 11, 2020. The Opinion and Order are linked below.
There are two things I want to share from Congelton's Civil action. First, I finally found a negative post about Stines!
In December 2018,
Congleton posted to social media that she did not support Stines in the 2018 election because "he simply does not have the moral compass or training to be a Sheriff." (DE 17-6, post.)
Second, this involves case law to support my opinion that any suit filed against Stines in his official capacity as Letcher County Sheriff is simply another way for a Plaintiff to make a claim against the County without the public recognizing that the Plaintiff is trying to shake-down money from a big tree.
As to the claims against Stines in his official capacity as the Letcher County sheriff, these claims are treated as claims against the county. Official-capacity suits are simply "another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent." Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985).
In her complaint, Congleton does not mention any unconstitutional county custom or policy, which is necessary for municipal liability under § 1983. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978); Fox v. Van Oosterum, 176 F.3d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1999).
Congleton does not address the official-capacity claim at all in her response to Stines' motion for summary judgment. Thus, this claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
Read Congleton v. Stines, CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:19-20-KKC, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
