Borden v. Jackson County, MS et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 22 Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff's claims against defendant Joe Martin, in both his official and individual capacities with prejudice, overruling plaintiff's objections, and modifying report and recommendations as stated herein. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 8/6/12. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BARRON BORDEN, # 164982
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-cv-193-HSO-JMR

JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS,
MODIFYING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT JOE MARTIN
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections [25] to Chief
Magistrate Judge John M. Roper’s Report and Recommendations [24]. The
Magistrate Judge reviewed Defendant Joe Martin’s Motion to Dismiss [22], and
recommended that the Motion [22] be granted, and that Plaintiff’s claims against
Martin be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Report and Recommendations, at pp.
5–6. Plaintiff filed Objections [25] to the Report and Recommendations on March 9,
2012. After review of the record, the Court, being fully advised in the premises,
finds that Plaintiff’s Objections should be overruled, that said Report and
Recommendations [24] should be modified as stated herein, that Martin’s Motion to
Dismiss [22] should be granted, and that Plaintiff’s claims against Martin be
dismissed with prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
A.

Procedural Background
The Magistrate Judge determined that the Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against Martin, pursuant to the Rooker/Feldman
doctrine, because he found that Plaintiff’s allegations could be construed as

requests for review of a state court order, or as issues that are inextricably
intertwined with those orders. Report and Recommendations [24], at p. 5 (citing
McCormick v. Dempster, 82 F. App’x 871 (5th Cir. 2003)). The Court need not
address whether Plaintiff’s claims against Martin are barred by the
Rooker/Feldman doctrine, because even if they were not, Plaintiff fails to state a
claim against Martin pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Accordingly, the Court will modify the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims
against Martin pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), for the reasons stated herein.1
Plaintiff makes no specific factual allegations against Martin in either his
original Complaint [1] or in his Motion to Amend [5]. He does state that “[a]ll of the
defendants are to be sued in their individual and official capacities.” Compl. [1], at
p. 6. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Martin is the Circuit Clerk of
Jackson County, Mississippi. In Plaintiff’s Response [15] to the Magistrate Judge’s
Order [14] entered June 29, 2011, Plaintiff states that “Defendant Martin refuses
the plaintiff all items he filed in a Motion for Discovery. Plaintiff, by state law –
U.R.C.C.P. #9.04 and Federal Law - ‘access to Public Records. [sic]” Resp. [15], at p.
7 (emphasis in original). Rule 9.04 of the Mississippi Uniform Rules of Circuit and
County Court Practice concerns discovery in Mississippi state courts and what

1

In ruling upon Martin’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court need not consider whether
Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act [“PLRA”], 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) (“In the event that a
claim . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, . . . the court may dismiss
the underlying claim without first requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies.”).

-2-

documents the prosecution must disclose to criminal defendants during discovery.
Plaintiff also maintains that
Joe Martin is an officer of the Court and suppose [sic] to protect those
constitutional rights. Defendant Joe Martins visits the JCADC on every
walk through the facility when the Grand Jury meets.
Objs. [25], at p. 2. Plaintiff has attached to his Objections a copy of a “Petition for
Order to Show Cause” [25-1], which appears to have been filed on April 6, 2011, in a
proceeding in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, against the State of
Mississippi, and which was stamped “FILED” by Martin in his capacity as Circuit
Clerk. The Petition advances no claims of wrongdoing by Martin, but contains
allegations similar to those raised in this case regarding conditions of confinement
at the Jackson County Adult Detention Center [“JCADC”]. Based on a liberal
construction of Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings, Plaintiff arguably attempts to assert
constitutional conditions of confinement and access to court claims against Martin,
in his official and individual capacities.
B.

Legal Standard
Because Plaintiff has filed Objections [25] to the Magistrate’s proposed

findings and recommendations, the Court applies a de novo standard of review. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 24, 2011, Defendant Joe Martin [“Martin”] filed a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims asserted against him, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mot. [22], at p. 1. “To survive dismissal pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6), plaintiffs must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cnty. School Dist., 675 F.3d
-3-

849, 854 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). At this
stage, the question before the Court is not whether Plaintiff will ultimately prevail,
but “whether his complaint was sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold . . . .”
Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1296 (2011).
Plaintiff attempts to assert claims against all Defendants in this case
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege facts showing that a person, acting under color of state law, deprived the
plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the United States Constitution
or the laws of the United States.” Bryant v. Military Dep't of Miss., 597 F.3d 678,
686 (5th Cir. 2010).
II. DISCUSSION
A.

Individual Capacity Claims Against Martin
1.

Conditions of Confinement

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s lawsuit is that he was subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the JCADC during his incarceration
there. A “conditions of confinement” claim raises a constitutional attack on general
conditions, practices, rules, or restrictions of pretrial confinement. Scott v. Moore,
114 F.3d 51, 53 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 644 (5th
Cir. 1996)). While Plaintiff alleges that Martin visits the JCADC when the grand
jury meets, there is no allegation that Martin was a jail official, that he had any
impact at all on the conditions of confinement there, or that he possessed any
authority to regulate those conditions in any way. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 13-5-55
-4-

(requiring each grand jury impaneled to make personal inspection of county jail and
make reports thereof to the court) and 47-1-31 (requiring each grand jury
impaneled to examine the records of county prisoners and their treatment and
condition and report the same to the court).
Plaintiff has not alleged that Martin deprived him of a right, privilege or
immunity secured by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United
States. See Bryant v. Military Dep't of Miss., 597 F.3d 678, 686 (5th Cir. 2010).
There is no allegation that Martin had any type of direct, personal involvement in
the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement, or that any purportedly wrongful actions of
Martin’s were causally connected thereto. See Jones v. Lowndes Cnty., Miss., 678
F.3d 344, 349 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a constitutional
conditions of confinement claim against Martin.
2.

Access to Courts

Plaintiff next maintains that he is entitled free copies of certain documents.
Compl. [1], at pp. 4–5. Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order requiring
Defendants to “handover to the plaintiff ‘all’ of the items” he requests in his
Complaint. Id., at p. 4 (emphasis in original). To the extent that Plaintiff’s
allegations could somehow be construed as a § 1983 claim for denial of a
constitutional right of access to courts, he fails to state such a claim against Martin.
“Meaningful access to the courts is a fundamental constitutional right,
grounded in the First Amendment right to petition and the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment due process clauses.” Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir.
-5-

1993) (quoting Chrissy F. v. Miss. Dept. of Public Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 851 (5th
Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff “may establish a violation of this right by showing that he
was not provided with the means ‘to file a legally sufficient claim.’” Smith v.
Stewart, 8 F.3d 20, 1993 WL 455525, *1 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Mann v. Smith,
796 F.2d 79, 84 (5th Cir. 1986)). “To state a constitutional violation, a prisoner
must show that his access to the courts has been, in fact, prejudiced.” Id.
Plaintiff has not alleged that he made any request to Martin for the
documents at issue, or that Martin has intentionally withheld the documents. Nor
has Plaintiff articulated what actual injury he purportedly suffered as a result of
not receiving the requested documents. Plaintiff has not alleged that Martin
actively interfered with his attempts to prepare or file legal documents, or that
Martin otherwise hindered his efforts to pursue a habeas petition, a § 1983 claim, or
a direct appeal from the conviction for which he is incarcerated. See Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 350–55 (1996) (citations omitted). In short, Plaintiff has failed to
state a constitutional access to courts claim against Martin. In addition, without an
actual injury, Plaintiff has no standing to pursue his access to courts claim against
Martin. See id. To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting that Martin somehow
violated state law, violation of state law alone does not give rise to a cause of action
under § 1983. Williams v. Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 900 (5th Cir. 1982).
B.

Official Capacity Claims Against Martin
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Martin in his official capacity are in

actuality claims against Jackson County, Mississippi. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473
-6-

U.S. 159, 166 (1985). To establish a § 1983 claim against the County, the alleged
deprivation of constitutional rights “must be connected to ‘a governmental custom,’
‘policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and
promulgated by the body’s officers.’” Jones v. Lowndes Cnty., Miss., 678 F.3d 344,
349 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S.
658, 690–91 (1978)). As to Martin, Plaintiff has not identified any custom or policy
to which he traces his alleged deprivation of rights. Nor has he alleged that Martin
was a policymaker. See Brooks v. George Cnty, Miss., 84 F.3d 157, 168–69 (5th Cir.
1996) (holding that under Mississippi law the clerk was not the policymaker in the
county circuit court system, that circuit clerk could not be liable under § 1983 for
failing to establish a policy of sending orders to parties in a criminal proceeding,
and that circuit clerks merely have a duty to file and docket all papers filed in each
court case) (citing Miss. Code Ann. §§ 9-7-171, 9-7-175, and 9-7-177; In re Collins,
524 So. 2d 553, 555 (Miss. 1987)). Finally, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the
deprivation of any of his constitutional rights by Martin. Plaintiff’s official capacity
claims against Martin cannot survive the Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.
C.

Plaintiff’s Request to Amend
In his original Complaint [1], Plaintiff “request[ed] and assert[ed] his rights

within the Fed. R. Civ. P. to amend, his Complaint.” Compl. [1], at p. 6. To the
extent that this could be construed as a request to amend his Complaint as against
Martin, Plaintiff’s request is not well taken. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15
provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend a
-7-

complaint] when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). The Fifth Circuit has
instructed that, when considering whether to allow amendment pursuant to Rule
15(a), a court should consider factors such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility
of amendment.” In re American Intern. Refinery, Inc., 676 F.3d 455, 466–67 (5th
Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Southmark, 88 F.3d 311, 315 (5th Cir. 1996)). With respect
to pro se claimants, the Fifth Circuit has held that
[g]enerally a district court errs in dismissing a pro se complaint for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) without giving the plaintiff an
opportunity to amend . . . . Such error may be ameliorated, however, if
the plaintiff has alleged his best case, or if the dismissal was without
prejudice.
Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998).
The Court has previously granted Plaintiff opportunities to amend his
Complaint and his allegations against Martin. See Order [14], at pp. 1–2 (granting
in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [5], and requiring Plaintiff
file a written response specifically stating how Martin violated his constitutional
rights, among other things); Pl.’s Resp. [15] to Court’s Order [14], at pp. 2–8. In
addition, the Court finds that any amendment of the claims against Martin would
be futile. Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to, and has, “alleged his best
case,” yet he is unable to state a § 1983 claim against Martin. Bazrowx, 136 F.3d at
1054.

-8-

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, after thoroughly reviewing the findings in the
Report and Recommendations, in addition to the positions advanced in Plaintiff’s
Objections [25], the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections should be overruled, and
that the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations [24] should be modified as
stated herein. Plaintiff’s claims against Martin should be dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Plaintiff’s
Objections [25] filed in this cause on March 9, 2012, are OVERRULED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendations [24] of Chief Magistrate Judge John M. Roper, should be, and
hereby are, modified as stated herein.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Defendant Joe
Martin’s Motion to Dismiss [22] should be, and hereby is, GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Joe Martin, in both his official and individual
capacities, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 6th day of August, 2012.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-9-