Young v. Board of Supervisors of Humphreys County, Mississippi et al
ORDER granting 69 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 1/30/2018. (lpm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-00066-MPM-JMV
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF HUMPHREYS
COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI et al.
This matter comes before the court on Defendant “Dickie” Stevens’ motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction , or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. The court has
considered the motion, as well as the relevant case law and evidence, and is now prepared to rule.
On December 28, 2017, this court granted the co-defendant Board of Supervisors’ motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the takings claim, but denied the
motion with respect to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claims. Like his co-defendant’s previous
motion, Stevens argues that the cause at hand is not ripe for litigation, and, as such, should be
dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant Stevens’
instant motion to dismiss mirrors that of the Board’s earlier motion, and, as such, the analysis
would be nearly identical. However, Defendant Stevens’ motion also includes, in the alternative,
a motion for summary judgment and raises the defense of sovereign immunity. The court now
considers this portion of the motion.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine issue of material fact and the
movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The facts and evidence
are taken in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. LeMaire v. La. Dep't of Transp. &
Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 386 (5th Cir. 2007).
A dispute regarding a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if “critical evidence is so weak or tenuous
on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the non-movant.” Armstrong
v. City of Dallas, 997 F.2d 62, 67 (5th Cir. 1993). A party opposing a properly supported motion
for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but […]
must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at
248. If the nonmoving party fails to meet this burden, the motion for summary judgment must be
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a governmental official from civil liability for
damages based upon the performance of discretionary functions if the official's acts did not violate
clearly established constitutional or statutory law of which a reasonable person would have known.
Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 462 (5th Cir. 2006). The court follows a two-pronged analysis to
determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, inquiring (1) whether, taken in
the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the facts alleged show the official’s
conduct violated a constitutional right and, (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly
established at the time the conduct occurred. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).
It is well established that a defendant who “pleads qualified immunity and shows he is a
governmental official whose position involves the exercise of discretion” thereby places the
burden on the plaintiff to “rebut this defense by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful
conduct violated clearly established law.” Pierce v. Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1997).
“The plaintiff bears the burden of negating the defense and cannot rest on conclusory assertions,
but must demonstrate genuine issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the official's
conduct.” Gatson v. Winston County, Miss. 2014, WL 585810, at *5 (N.D. Miss. 2014)(internal
citations omitted). Therefore, it is the plaintiff, rather than the defendant, who must do most of the
“heavy lifting” in the qualified immunity context.
In addition to Defendant Stevens’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Stevens also
moves, in the alternative, for summary judgment, raising the defense of qualified immunity. The
court follows a two-pronged analysis to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified
immunity, inquiring (1) whether, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury,
the facts alleged show the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right and, (2) whether the
constitutional right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. Saucier v. Katz, 533
U.S. 194, 201 (2001).
First, the court considers whether the Stevens meets the first prong, and whether the facts
alleged in the pleadings demonstrate that his conduct violated a constitutional right. Plaintiff
alleges that Stevens violated his 14th Amendment rights by depriving Plaintiff of his property
without due process. Plaintiff states as much with the following: “by denying Mr. Young the
opportunity for notice and a hearing prior to taking action, Mr. Young was denied his due process
rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”1 The court is not convinced that such an act
is a violation of Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment right to due process, however, for the sake of further
analysis, the court will consider the Plaintiff’s argument as well-taken.
However, the court must secondly consider the next prong of qualified immunity—whether
the constitutional right violated was “clearly established” when the conduct in question occurred.
Plaintiff argues that because Mississippi law explicitly provides a legal path for a county board of
supervisors to condemn a property through a hearing process, Stevens knew or should have known
that it would violate Plaintiff’s right to due process. However, this point is unclear to the court.
The court does not believe that a clearly established constitutional right was violated solely
because Stevens chose to have a notice placed on the door of the Plaintiff’s residence. Furthermore,
the notice is not signed by Stevens, and it is not completely clear that the notice posted is the exact
notice that Stevens instructed to be posted or intended to have posted, though he has not argued to
In addition, the statements by the Plaintiff regarding Stevens’ actions amount to mere
conclusory allegations, with respect to whether or not the posting of the notice actually violated
any clearly established constitutional right. While the actions by Stevens might be against the
Mississippi statute regarding appropriate actions by a board of supervisors in a similar
circumstance, Plaintiff does not demonstrate specifically how the actions of Defendant Stevens
were a violation of those laws, nor how the actions were violations of any clearly established
constitutional right. The Plaintiff cannot rely merely on conclusory allegations, but must
specifically dictate how Stevens violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to
overcome qualified immunity, and Plaintiff has failed to do so.
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Response , page 4.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Stevens’ motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of January, 2018.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?