Burnette v. City of Southaven et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying 54 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing official capacity claim; individual claim remains. Signed by W. Allen Pepper on 6/15/2009. (pbs, USDC)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION QUINTON BURNETT VERSUS CITY OF SOUTHAVEN, MAYOR GREG DAVIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF SOUTHAVEN, MISSISSIPPI; SOUTHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THOMAS LONG IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE, CHAD SIMMONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A SOUTHAVEN POLICE OFFICER ORDER This cause is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment [54] filed by defendant Chad Simmons, individually and in his official capacity as a Southaven Police Officer. The Court, having reviewed the motion, the response, the briefs of the parties, the authorities cited and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows, to-wit: Plaintiff sued Chad Simmons in both his individual and official capacities. The official capacity claim is tantamount to a claim against the City of Southaven, already named as a defendant. Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the official capacity claim against Simmons is redundant and said claim should be dismissed. As regards the individual capacity claim against Simmons, the Court concludes that the motion is not well-taken and should be denied for the same reasons expressed in the Court's prior Order dated March 25, 2009. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08CV45-P-A DEFENDANTS IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant Simmons' Motion for Summary Judgment [54] is not well-taken and should be, and hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the official capacity claim against defendant Simmons' should be, and hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This, the 15th day of June, 2009. /s/ W. Allen Pepper, Jr. W. ALLEN PEPPER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?