Jason Tartt’s federal civil rights lawsuit against two McDowell County sheriff’s deputies ended in a settlement filed on July 29, 2024, roughly a month after a federal judge denied the deputies qualified immunity and cleared Tartt’s core claims for trial.1CourtListener. Tartt v. Martin, Docket The financial terms were not disclosed. On October 28, 2024, Senior U.S. District Judge David A. Faber entered a final order of voluntary dismissal, dropping Deputies Dalton Martin and Jordan Horn from the case with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and fees.2PACER Monitor. Tartt v. Martin et al, Order of Voluntary Dismissal
What Tartt Sued Over
On August 7, 2020, Deputies Martin and Horn were investigating a tip about marijuana plants near Baptist Drive in the Valls Creek area of McDowell County. They found four plants near an abandoned church on land that, according to the suit, belonged to a third party.3WVNS-TV. Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Two McDowell County Deputies The plants sat about 50 feet from a home rented by Donnie and Ventriss Hairston, an African American couple who were Tartt’s tenants. When the deputies accused the Hairstons of growing the plants, the couple called their landlord.4vLex. Tartt v. Martin, Civil Action No. 1:22-00327
Tartt arrived and gave his name but refused to provide his date of birth, saying the deputies knew the marijuana was not on his property. Deputy Martin grabbed his arm, and Deputy Horn handcuffed him. Tartt was taken to Welch and charged with obstructing a law enforcement officer. The charge was dismissed in October 2020 after the arresting officer failed to appear in McDowell County Magistrate Court.5Yahoo News. McDowell County Deputies Facing Federal Lawsuit
Tartt and the Hairstons sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on August 5, 2022, bringing Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution, a First Amendment retaliation claim, a racial profiling claim, and a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. They asked for compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and a jury trial.1CourtListener. Tartt v. Martin, Docket
The Ruling That Preceded the Settlement
On June 25, 2024, Judge Faber granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part. Three sets of claims survived and were headed for trial: Tartt’s Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution, his First Amendment retaliation claim, and the § 1985 conspiracy claims brought by all three plaintiffs.6Justia. Tartt v. Martin et al, Memorandum Opinion and Order
Faber rejected the deputies’ qualified immunity defense, calling it “objectively unreasonable for the officers to arrest and jail him for not disclosing his date of birth.” Silence alone, the court explained, does not constitute obstruction under West Virginia Code § 61-5-17(a), and Tartt’s refusal to hand over additional personal information did not meet the legal threshold for that charge.6Justia. Tartt v. Martin et al, Memorandum Opinion and Order
The court also found that Deputy Martin had made “material misstatements and omissions” in the sworn criminal complaint. The affidavit did not mention that Tartt had already given his name, and it misrepresented the location of the marijuana, leaving out that the plants were on public land near an ATV trail rather than on Tartt’s property. Deputy Horn himself testified there was no reason to suspect Tartt of growing marijuana or of any other crime.6Justia. Tartt v. Martin et al, Memorandum Opinion and Order
On the conspiracy claims, the court noted the racial context. All three plaintiffs are African American, and Ventriss Hairston had tied her request for the officers’ names to the George Floyd killing months earlier. Faber found enough disputed factual issues to send those claims to a jury.6Justia. Tartt v. Martin et al, Memorandum Opinion and Order
What the Settlement Resolved and What It Didn’t
The parties filed a notice of settlement on July 29, 2024, and Judge Faber moved the case to the inactive docket. No public filing lists the settlement amount or any non-monetary conditions.1CourtListener. Tartt v. Martin, Docket
The October 28, 2024 order of voluntary dismissal ended the case as to Martin and Horn with prejudice, so those claims cannot be refiled. Each side pays its own costs and attorney fees.2PACER Monitor. Tartt v. Martin et al, Order of Voluntary Dismissal The available court records do not show whether either deputy was disciplined, suspended, or terminated in connection with the arrest or the lawsuit. Chief Deputy James “Boomer” Muncy and the McDowell County Commission had already been dropped at summary judgment when the court rejected the supervisory liability and Monell claims against them.1CourtListener. Tartt v. Martin, Docket