Kenneth W. Dudley v. Virgil K. Stoneman and Alcohol Beverage Control Commission

Citations: 653 F.2d 125; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11550Docket: 81-1020

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; July 10, 1981; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kenneth W. Dudley, an investigator for the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, was discharged for falsifying a report. He filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Commission and his supervisor, Virgil K. Stoneman, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. Dudley admitted to falsifying the report but contended that he acted under Stoneman's direction and claimed he was denied equal protection when he received a harsher penalty (dismissal) compared to a colleague who received only a five-day suspension for a similar offense. Dudley also alleged that Stoneman had promised equal treatment regarding punishment.

The district court dismissed the suit against the Commission, ruling it was immune under the Eleventh Amendment, a decision which was not appealed. The suit against Stoneman was dismissed for two reasons: first, the court found Dudley's discharge was too remote a consequence of Stoneman's actions, citing *Martinez v. California*, and second, the court concluded that the principles of § 1983 are not served by allowing a former law enforcement officer, who admitted to report falsification, to evade consequences by claiming he followed superior orders.

The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment primarily based on the second reason. It held that Dudley was in pari delicto (equally at fault) with Stoneman, thus precluding recovery under § 1983. Virginia law supports this position, indicating that participation in an illegal act bars recovery for injuries resulting from that act. The judgment was ultimately affirmed.