Bernegger v. Adams et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 116 Final Judgment, Signed by Michael P. Mills on 5/31/12. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ROBERT J. MIMS
W. ALLEN PEPPER, JR.
U. S. MARSHAL SERVICE
BUREAU OF PRISONS
22 “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANTS
5 “JANE DOE” DEFENDANTS
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Peter Bernegger,
who alleges that various defendants, both State and federal, have violated his constitutional
rights. He seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (for his claims against the State defendants) and
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct.
1999 (1971) (for his claims against the federal defendants). For the purposes of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit.
For the reasons set forth below, all claims and defendants in the instant case will be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Put simply, this case has degenerated into disarray – a veritable squirrel’s nest – in part
because Mr. Bernegger’s many claims and defendants have been added piecemeal in his
complaint, amended complaint, and other documents. It seems that wherever Mr. Bernegger has
been housed, he believes that the jailors there have violated his constitutional rights. Mr.
Bernegger has alleged many causes of action; the claims and defendants have certainly piled up
as this case has progressed. Further complicating matters is Mr. Bernegger’s habit of seeking
reconsideration of every adverse ruling the court has made in this case. In addition, for each of
his claims, Mr. Bernegger provides a skeletal description of perceived wrongs perpetrated
against him, then simply lists the defendants below that description – without describing who
carried out which actions or how each defendant was involved. Finally, Mr. Bernegger has listed
many defendants against whom he has made no allegations whatsoever. In sum, the nature,
number, and presentation of the claims and defendants in this case have made difficult its orderly
To be fair, the court itself must shoulder some responsibility for the state of this case. As
this case has progressed, some claims and defendants were dismissed. Unfortunately (due
largely to the difficulties described above) the court lost track of which defendants allegedly took
part in each of the many claims and, thus, which claims and defendants remained in the case.
This confusion resulted in service of process to several defendants who had previously been
dismissed from the case. This memorandum opinion and judgment will set this case aright – and
move it toward resolution.
To start unraveling the case, the court will set forth: (1) Bernegger’s claims; (2) the
origin of each claim; and (3) the defendants involved in each claim. Next, the court will set forth
which claims and defendants have been dismissed from this case in previous orders. Then the
court will catalog: (1) the claims remaining; and (2) the defendants involved in the remaining
claims. Finally, having thus established the claims and defendants remaining in the case after
previous dispositive rulings, the court will determine the viability of the remaining claims.
Peter Bernegger’s Claims
On November 12, 2009, the plaintiff Peter Bernegger was found guilty by a jury of two
counts of fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344.1
All of Mr. Bernegger’s claims arise out of those convictions and his incarceration in various
Claims Found in the Original Complaint 
(Filed January 21, 2010)
Mr. Bernegger’s claims in his original complaint arise out of his prosecution for the
crimes set forth above. Mr. Bernegger alleges that the late Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr. and court
employees Sarah Adams and Jennifer “Doe” failed to file Bernegger’s pro se pleadings on the
record. Bernegger also alleges that Judge Pepper permitted the criminal proceedings in the
absence of subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, Bernegger alleges that Judge Pepper denied
him the right to face his accuser. Bernegger also alleges that Assistant United States Attorney
Robert Mims attempted to extort money from Bernegger’s family. Finally, Bernegger alleges
that Robert Mims tampered with witnesses in the case by speaking with them.
The defendants in Bernegger’s original complaint are: (1) Sarah Adams; (2) Jennifer
“Doe;” (3) Robert J. Mims; (4) Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr.; and (5) John Does 1 and 2.
Bernegger has appealed his conviction and sentence.
Claims Found in the Amended Complaint (Sealed)
(Filed February 9, 2010)
Bernegger included in his amended complaint extremely vile and graphic language; as
such, the court sealed the document. He made the following claims against the Bolivar County
Regional Correctional Facility and various officers employed there:
(1) Forced listening to repulsive videos;
(2) Forced participation in a conspiracy to use bootlegged movies;
(3) Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke;
(4) Failure to protect him from attack by other inmates;
(5) General conditions of confinement;
(a) denial of weekly telephone calls;
(b) making use of the telephone unreasonably expensive;
(c) failure to respond to grievances; and
(6) Mail tampering (stamping outgoing mail to identify a jail or prison as its point of
Bernegger made the following claims against the Oklahoma City Transfer Center:
(1) Denial of access to legal materials; and
(2) Denial of unmonitored access to his attorney;
(3) Taking of legal papers.
Bernegger made additional claims against Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr.:
(1) Denial of the right to object on the record;
(2) Forcing Bernegger to sign a contract by threat of incarceration.
Bernegger made an additional claim against Assistant United States Attorney Robert J. Mims:
(1) Trying to force Bernegger to plead guilty to all six counts of the indictment, when he
was not charged in all six counts.
The defendants in Bernegger’s Amended Complaint are: (1) the defendants named in the
original complaint; (2) Michael East; (3) Parker Howard; (4) U.S. Marshal Service; (5)
Bureau of Prisons; (6) Jeff Butler; (7) Sam Moore; (8) 20 John Does; (9) 5 Jane Does.
Defendants Named in the Complaint and Amended Complaint
Thus, the defendants Bernegger has named in either his original complaint or amended
complaint are: (1) Sarah Adams; (2) Jennifer “Doe;” (3) Robert J. Mims; (4) Judge W.
Allen Pepper, Jr.; (5) Michael East, (6) Parker Howard, (7) U.S. Marshal Service, (8)
Bureau of Prisons, (9) Jeff Butler,(10) Sam Moore, and (11) the Oklahoma City Federal
Defendants Named in Various Motions
Bernegger has also mentioned defendants – who were not named in either his complaint
or amended complaint – in several motions throughout this case. The court, in accordance with
the holding in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), will view the mention of these people as
an attempt to add them as defendants. In a document  entitled “Verified Petition for
Perpetuation of Testimony by Deposition,” he mentions (12) Officer Hayward (or Haywood),
(13) Captain Brown, (14) Captain White – and refers to them later as “parties.” In that same
document, Bernegger states that he would like to depose (15) Assistant Warden Sellers, (16)
Captain Hicks, (17) Captain Cook, and (18) Ms. Walker. He then vaguely states that he
would like to depose these parties “concerning the claims in the Motion to Amend Complaint.”
Bernegger set forth twelve claims in his Amended Complaint, but in his request for depositions,
he does not state what role any of these “parties” might have played in those claims.
In a Motion to Reconsider , Bernegger states that he previously named (19) “a
bankruptcy judge” as a defendant in this case regarding the claim against Robert Mims for
“witness tampering.” That entire claim was dismissed in the court’s memorandum opinion and
judgment of June 17, 2010.
Bernegger again mentions Parker Howard, the late Judge W. Allen Pepper’s former law
clerk, as a defendant in the Motion to Reconsider . In this document, Bernegger alleges that
Judge Pepper and Parker Howard “called a witness” (Bernegger’s attorney Rob Laher) in the
bench trial of August 20, 2009 – a trial to determine whether Bernegger was in contempt of
court. The court previously dismissed that entire claim for a variety of reasons, including the
fact that Bernegger was found not to be in contempt of court – and thus suffered no harm from
the alleged actions of Judge Pepper and Parker Howard. In that same document, Bernegger also
mentions Judge Pepper and Parker Howard in connection with the claim that the court forced
him to sign a contract. That claim was also dismissed in the court’s judgment of June 17, 2010.
The “contract” was a mental health release form, the execution of which was a requirement for
bond. If Bernegger chose not to sign the release form, then he would not have met the
conditions for bond – and he would have been held in custody until his trial.
Bernegger then lists the following defendants as part of his mail tampering and vulgar
movies claims (which were dismissed with prejudice in the court’s June 17, 2010, opinion and
judgment: (20) Mack Grimmett, (21) Tommy Taylor, (22) Captain Gallion, (23) Scott
Peterson, (24) Chris Espy, Asst. Warden Sellers, and the U. S. Marshal Service.2 Bernegger
The court has not assigned a number to the U. S. Marshal Service for this claim, as the
Marshal Service was listed as a defendant in Bernegger’s Amended Complaint. Similarly, the
court has not assigned a number to Asst. Warden Sellers here, as he was listed as a defendant in
also mentions (25) Lt. Wilson as part of the previously dismissed vulgar movies claim.
In his October 4, 2010, Motion to Void Judgment , Bernegger seeks to have various
claims and defendants added or reinstated, including some not previously mentioned, (26) Lt.
Hall, and (27) Warden of BOP Oklahoma City Transfer Center.
Thus, through two versions of his complaint and several motions, Peter Bernegger has
named twenty-seven defendants, involved in numerous alleged constitutional violations.
The Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Judgment of June 17, 2010
The Court analyzed Bernegger’s claims in its memorandum opinion and judgment of
June 17, 2010, and dismissed various claims and defendants from this suit with prejudice. The
following discussion summarizes the court’s holdings in that memorandum opinion and
The following defendants were dismissed from this case because Bernegger did not make
any allegations against them: (1) Michael East, (2) Parker Howard, U.S. Marshal Service,
Bureau of Prisons, Jeff Butler, and Sam Moore.
The court dismissed Bernegger’s claim that Ms. Adams and Jennifer “Doe” did not place
his pro se pleadings on the docket because they were following the express instructions of the
court. As this was the only claim against these two defendants, Ms. Adams and Jennifer “Doe”
were dismissed from this case with prejudice.
Bernegger’s claims against Assistant United States Attorney Robert Mims for extortion
and witness tampering were dismissed for two reasons: because they fail to state cognizable
claims and because Mims is cloaked in prosecutorial immunity. Bernegger’s claim against
a previous document.
Robert Mims regarding an attempt to force Bernegger to plead guilty to all six counts of the
indictment was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Bernegger’s many allegations against United States District Judge W. Allen Pepper
(proceeding in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, denying Bernegger the right to face his
accuser, denying Bernegger the right to state an objection on the record, and forcing Bernegger
under threat of incarceration to sign a contract) were all dismissed for two reasons: because they
failed to state a claim and because Judge Pepper is cloaked in judicial immunity.
Several of Bernegger’s claims against the Bolivar County Regional Correctional Facility
defendants were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted: (1)
forced listening to vulgar movies, (2) forced participation in a conspiracy to use “bootlegged”
movies, (3) failure to protect Bernegger against harm from other inmates, (4) denial of access to
a telephone, and (5) mail tampering.
In sum, under the court’s June 17, 2010, memorandum opinion and judgment, the
following defendants were dismissed with prejudice from this suit: Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney Robert Mims, Michael East, Parker Howard, U.S. Marshal
Service, Bureau of Prisons, Jeff Butler, Sam Moore, “Sarah” Adams, and Jennifer “Doe.” In
addition, the following claims were dismissed with prejudice: proceeding in the absence of
subject matter jurisdiction, denying Bernegger the right to face his accuser, denying Bernegger
the right to state an objection on the record, forcing Bernegger under threat of incarceration to
sign a contract, forced listening to vulgar movies, forced participation in a conspiracy, failure to
protect Bernegger from harm at the hands of other inmates, denial of access to the telephone,
mail tampering, and failure to docket Bernegger’s pro se submissions to the court.
Clearing up Which Claims and Defendants Remained
After the June 17, 2010, Memorandum Opinion and Judgment
Claims Remaining After the June 17, 2010, Judgment:
In its memorandum opinion and judgment, the court identified the following claims
(which appeared to arise out of his stay at the Bolivar County Regional Correctional Facility) as
those which should proceed: (1) exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, (2) failure to
respond to grievances, (3) denial of access to legal materials, and (4) denial of unmonitored
access to his attorney.
Having studied the record further – and giving Mr. Bernegger the benefit of the doubt as
to the interpretation on his rambling pleadings under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) –
the court will give a broader interpretation to the claims regarding: (1) denial of access to legal
materials, (2) the confiscation of his legal papers3, and (3) unmonitored access to his attorney.
Initially, the court interpreted these claims as applying only to his stay in Bolivar County;
however, it appears that he may also have meant for these claims to apply to his brief stay in the
Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Facility. The court will assume that these claims apply to
Bernegger’s stay in both facilities in the following discussion.
The court had originally treated the claims for denial of access to legal materials and the
confiscation of legal papers as the same claim. Though it will not change the resolution of this
matter, for the sake of clarity, the court will treat them as separate claims in the instant opinion
As a result of the broader interpretation of Bernegger’s allegations, the following claims
remain: (1) exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (at the BCRCF only), (2) failure to
respond to grievances (at the BCRCF only), (3) denial of access to legal materials (at both
BCRCF and the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center), (4) confiscation of legal materials (at
both BCRCF and the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center), and (5) denial of unmonitored
access to his attorney (at both BCRCF and the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center).
Giving Mr. Bernegger a big benefit of the doubt (by permitting him to add defendants by
merely mentioning them in various motions), the following defendants have already been added
to this case: Mack Grimmett, Tommy Taylor, Captain Gallion, Scott Peterson, Chris Espy,
Lt. Hall, Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center, Warden of the Oklahoma City Federal
Transfer Center, Assistant Warden Sellers.
The Clerk of the Court will be directed to add these additional defendants, whom
Bernegger merely mentioned in his motion  to reconsider: Officer Hayward, Captain
Brown, Captain White, Captain Hicks, Captain Cook, and Ms. Walker.4
Analysis of Bernegger’s Remaining Claims
Having unwound the tangled web of Bernegger’s allegations in this case, the court will
analyze the remaining claims to determine which claims and defendants should be dismissed and
which, if any, should remain.
Mr. Bernegger also attempted to flesh out his claims against Judge Pepper, Robert
Mims, and Parker Howard in later motions, but his claims against those defendants had already
been properly dismissed, and will remain so.
Defendants Dismissed Because the Claims Associated
with Them Have Already Been Dismissed
The defendant listed as “a bankruptcy judge” will be dismissed because the only claim
in which he was mentioned, the witness tampering claim, has been dismissed. Similarly, the
following defendants will be dismissed because they are associated only with Bernegger’s claims
regarding mail tampering and vulgar movies (both of which have been dismissed): Mack
Grimmett, Tommy Taylor, Assistant Warden Sellers, Captain Gallion, Scott Peterson,
Chris Espy, and the U.S. Marshal Service. Lt. Wilson will be dismissed because he is
associated only with Bernegger’s claim regarding vulgar movies.
Defendants That Will Be Dismissed Because Bernegger’s Allegations
Against Them Fail to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could Be Granted.
Three of Bernegger’s allegations can be grouped into the single legal claim that he has
been denied access to the courts: (1) denial of access to legal research materials, (2) confiscation
of his legal documents, and (3) denial of unmonitored access to his attorney. Under the law –
and by any rational measure – Bernegger has enjoyed abundant access to the courts. These
allegations will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Denial of access to the courts is Bernegger’s sole claim against the Oklahoma City Federal
Transfer Center and the Warden of the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center. As such,
these defendants will be dismissed with prejudice from the present case.
Bernegger had adequate access to the courts through counsel appointed to defend his
criminal case. He has alleged no harm from lack of access to a legal library – and he has
certainly prosecuted the present case in this court with vigor. As such, his claims for denial of
access to the courts will be dismissed. Bernegger made similar claims against unspecified
defendants at the BCRCF, and those claims will be dismissed, as well.
Prisoners enjoy a constitutional right of access to courts, including having the “ability . . .
to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to court.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,
821 (1977), Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996), quoting Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3
F.3d 816, 821 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1123 (1994). The right of access to the
courts is limited to allow prisoners opportunity to file nonfrivolous claims challenging their
convictions or conditions of confinement. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999).
“Interference with a prisoner’s right to access to the courts, such as delay, may result in a
constitutional deprivation.” Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 1999) (citations
However, “[a] denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim is not valid if a litigant’s position is
not prejudiced by the alleged violation.” Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998);
Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 988 (1992), citing
Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1988). It is only when a prisoner suffers
some sort of actual prejudice or detriment from denial of access to the courts that the allegation
becomes one of constitutional magnitude. Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th
Cir. 1993); see Howland v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639, 642 (7th Cir. 1987). To prove his claim, a
plaintiff must show real detriment – a true denial of access – such as the loss of a motion, the
loss of a right to commence, prosecute or appeal in a court, or substantial delay in obtaining a
judicial determination in a proceeding. See Oaks v. Wainwright, 430 F.2d 241 (5th Cir. 1970).
Peter Bernegger has not alleged any harm – at all – from the purported denial of access to the
courts. This, alone, requires the dismissal of the claims of denial of access to the courts.
An inmate’s right of access to the courts may be fulfilled in ways other than access to a
law library. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351,116 S.Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). The right of access
to the courts is not “an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance[;] an
inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library
or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id. In this case, the plaintiff’s
access to the courts in his criminal case is through the counsel appointed him, “[f]or, once the
[government] has provided a petitioner with an attorney . . . , it has provided him with the
‘capability of bringing contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before
the courts.’” Lamp v. Iowa, 122 F.3d 1100, 1106 (8th Cir.1997), quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518
U.S. 343, 356 (1996); see also Schrier v. Halford, 60 F.3d 1309, 1313-1314 (8th Cir.1995)
(having appointed counsel is one way in which state can shoulder its burden of assuring access to
the courts); Sanders v. Rockland County Correctional Facility, No. 94 Civ. 3691, 1995 WL
479445 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 1995) (“By the appointment of counsel, plaintiff was afforded
meaningful access to the courts in his trial.”) When the government provides adequate legal
assistance to a prisoner, it has fulfilled its obligation to provide him access to the courts – and
need not provide access to a law library. “Inmates are entitled to either adequate law libraries or
adequate assistance from persons trained in the law, but certainly not both.” Meeks v. California
Dep't of Corrections, 1993 WL 330724 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 1993), citing Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828.
Peter Bernegger had counsel appointed to defend him against criminal charges; as such,
he has adequate access to the courts in his criminal case. Further, given his prolific filings in the
instant civil case, with numerous legal citations, he can hardly claim that he has been denied
access to this court for his civil claims. As such, the plaintiff’s claim of denial of access to the
courts will be dismissed for failure to state a constitutional claim – and defendants Oklahoma
City Federal Transfer Center and the Warden of the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer
Center will be dismissed with prejudice from this case.
Bernegger Has Made No Allegations Against Lt. Hall,
Who Will Be Dismissed With Prejudice From This Case
Though Mr. Bernegger mentioned a defendant named Lt. Hall in his October 4, 2010,
Motion to Void Judgment , he made absolutely no allegations against Hall anywhere in his
multitudinous pleadings and motions. As such, Lt. Hall will be dismissed from this case with
Bernegger’s Claim that the BCRCF Would Not Respond to His Grievances
Will Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could Be Granted
Peter Bernegger has alleged that the Bolivar County Regional Correctional Facility and
unspecified employees there would either ignored his grievances or put them into the trash. He
believes that these acts (or omissions) rise to the level of a constitutional violation. He is
mistaken. Inmates must exhaust their “administrative remedies as are available” before
proceeding with a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A prison system
is not required to establish grievance procedures, and the failure of a jail or prison to establish or
adhere to a grievance procedure does not rise to the level of a § 1983 claim. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(b);
Bradford v. Kuykendall, 2005 WL 1521016, 5(E. D. Tex.) citing Geiger v. Gowers, 404 F. 3d
371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Inmates have no basis for a civil rights lawsuit simply because they are
unhappy with grievance procedures. Id. In any event, the failure of prison officials to respond to
grievances is not even an impediment to exhaustion. Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999)
(administrative remedies are deemed exhausted if prison officials fail to respond to grievances).
For these reasons, Mr. Bernegger’s claims regarding the failure of unspecified BCRCF
employees to respond to his grievances will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.
Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke
After dismissal of various claims and defendants in the court’s opinion and judgment of
June 17, 2010, and the preceding discussion in the present memorandum opinion, Bernegger’s
alleged exposure to environmental tobacco smoke while housed at the Bolivar County Regional
Correctional Facility is his sole remaining claim. He has not, however, specified which
defendants might be involved in this claim; nor has he described any acts or omissions by the
unnamed defendants which might have led to his exposure to tobacco smoke. In addition,
Bernegger has alleged absolutely no harm from such exposure. Though courts must construe a
pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the court must not
supplement the pleadings with additional facts or construe the complaint to contain claims not
present in the pleadings.
A plaintiff must set forth grounds entitling him to relief – and must do so with more than
“labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286,
106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). The facts alleged must be sufficient to identify a right
to relief above the level of mere speculation. Bernegger’s allegations regarding exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke do not rise to that level. Bernegger has not specified which
defendants participated in his environmental tobacco smoke claim, the acts or omissions leading
to his alleged exposure, the period during which he may have been exposed to tobacco smoke, or
any harm he might have suffered from it. As such, he has not stated a constitutional claim
regarding environmental tobacco smoke, and this allegation will be dismissed.
Remaining Defendants Dismissed Because Bernegger
Has Not Set Forth Any Acts or Omissions Against Them
As discussed above, in Bernegger’s “Verified Petition for Perpetuation of Testimony by
Deposition,”  he mentions (1) Officer Hayward (or Haywood), (2) Captain Brown, (3)
Captain White – and refers to them later as “parties.” In that same document, Bernegger states
that he would like to depose (4) Assistant Warden Sellers, (5) Captain Hicks, (6) Captain
Cook, and (7) Ms. Walker. He then states that he would like to depose these parties
“concerning the claims in the Motion to Amend Complaint.”
To say the least, this claim is vague, as Bernegger set forth twelve claims in his Amended
Complaint, but in his request for depositions, he does not state what part any of these parties
might have played in those twelve claims. Such nebulous allegations do not state a viable claim.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). As such, these defendants will be dismissed with
prejudice from this case for failure to state a claim against them upon which relief could be
In sum, all of the remaining claims and defendants will be dismissed, and the case will be
dismissed with prejudice. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue
SO ORDERED, this the 31st day of May, 2012.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
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?