Edward v. Bankhead et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 14 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 3/28/2014. (llw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
CURTIS EDWARD
PLAINTIFF
V.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12CV140-B-A
ANDREW BANKHEAD;
THE CITY OF CLEVELAND,
MISSISSIPPI; ROBERT G. JOHNSTON;
AND JEFFREY A. LEVINGSTON
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Came on to be considered this day the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment. As the court has examined exhibits outside the pleadings,
this ruling is based upon the alternative motion for summary judgment. Upon due consideration
of the motion, the court is ready to rule.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Curtis Edward, pro se, has filed suit against the City of Cleveland, Mississippi,
Cleveland Police Officer Andrew Bankhead, Cleveland City Prosecutor Robert Johnston, and
Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Jeffrey Levingston for various claims apparently arising from
certain traffic citations against him within the City of Cleveland.
On January 30, 2012, Edward was issued three tickets by the City of Cleveland Police
Department for no driver’s license, no tag, and no insurance. On March 27, 2012, the clerk of
the municipal court mailed Edward a letter requesting payment of these tickets. No response
was made. On April 11, 2012, defendant Levingston signed three warrants for Edward’s arrest,
and he was arrested on the three warrants and was also issued three more tickets for no driver’s
license, no tag, and no insurance. Edward posted bond the next day and was released from
custody. He initially pled not guilty but after several trial continuances, he appeared before
Judge Levingston on July 9, 2012, and pled guilty to all charges and was assessed fines totaling
$2,033.00.
Edward brought this action on August 2, 2012, asserting a litany of claims, including,
inter alia, wrongful arrest, federal kidnapping, extortion, grand theft, criminal trespass, and
wrongful detention, and various constitutional violations arising “under the 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th,
8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.” The defendants have moved for summary judgment on all
claims.
Standard of Review
A party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). On a motion for summary judgment, the movant has the initial
burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the movant makes such a showing, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to “go beyond the pleadings and by . . . affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial.’” Id. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e)). Before finding that no genuine
issue for trial exists, the court must first be satisfied that no rational trier of fact could find for the
non-movant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
“[T]he issue of fact must be ‘genuine.’ When the moving party has carried its burden
under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
2
doubt as to the material facts.” Id. at 586. “Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences,
and unsupported speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”
Brown v. City of Houston, Tex., 337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 2003). Further, self-serving
“affidavit or deposition testimony setting forth ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of
law are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Clark v. America’s Favorite
Chicken Co., 110 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 1997).
The court must render summary judgment in favor of the moving party if “there is no
legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000). The Supreme Court
has cautioned, however, that the ruling court must not encroach upon the functions of the jury.
The Court stated in Reeves as follows:
[T]he court must review all of the evidence in the record, drawing all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but making no credibility
determinations or weighing any evidence. The latter functions, along with the
drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts, are for the jury, not the court.
Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all
evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.
Id. (citations omitted). “Summary judgment, although a useful device, must be employed
cautiously because it is a final adjudication on the merits.” Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235,
1241 (5th Cir. 1989).
Analysis
Edward has offered no factual support for his claims. Indeed, his complaint is devoid of
sufficient facts even to apprise the court as to what his complaints actually are. Edward does
make clear that his claims arise from the traffic citations noted above, but beyond this, he only
provides conclusory allegations. It is, of course, axiomatic that conclusory allegations,
3
speculation, improbable inferences, and unsubstantiated assertions do not substitute for specific
facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., Williams v. Weber Management Servs. Inc.,
839 F.2d 1039, 1041 (5th Cir. 1987). Further, Edward has failed to respond to the defendants
motion for summary judgment. While the court will not grant a dispositive motion simply as
unopposed, “Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in
search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to summary judgment.” Ragas v. Tennessee
Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Jones v. Sheehan, Young & Culp,
P.C., 82 F.3d 1334, 1338 (5th Cir. 1996) (stating that a court, when ruling on a summary
judgment motion, has no duty to survey the entire record in search of evidence to support the
nonmovant’s opposition).
The court finds no genuine issue of material fact in this case, and the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment should be granted. Additionally, the court finds that each of the
individual defendants would be entitled to immunity if the summary judgment motion was not
dispositive of the entire case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment should be granted. A separate order in accord with this opinion shall issue this day.
This, the 28th day of March, 2014.
/s/ Neal Biggers
NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?