Bivens et al v. Forrest County et al
Filing
298
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 264 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 2/23/2016 (scp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
PHILLIP BIVENS, et al.
V.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-8-KS-MTP
FORREST COUNTY, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons below, the Court denies Forrest County’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings [264].
I. BACKGROUND
The Court provided an extensive discussion of the factual background of this
case in a previous order. See Bivens v. Forrest County, No. 2:13-CV-8-KS-MTP, 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40602, at *3-*9 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 30, 2015). Forrest County filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [264], which the Court now addresses.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A “motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the same
standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d
413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC v. La. State,
624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010) (punctuation omitted). “To be plausible, the
complaint’s factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Id. (punctuation omitted). The Court must “accept all well-pleaded
facts as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Id. But the Court will not accept as true “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual
inferences, or legal conclusions.” Id. Likewise, “a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 615
F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2010) (punctuation omitted). “While legal conclusions can
provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).
III. DISCUSSION
Forrest County argues that Plaintiffs alleged insufficient facts to state Section
1983 claims for municipal liability and failure to train or supervise employees.
A.
Municipal Liability
The Fifth Circuit has provided the following summary of the law concerning
municipal liability under Section 1983:
A municipality is not liable under § 1983 on the theory of respondeat
superior, but only for acts that are directly attributable to it through
some official action or imprimatur. To hold a municipality liable under §
1983 for the misconduct of an employee, a plaintiff must show, in addition
to a constitutional violation, that an official policy promulgated by the
municipality’s policymaker was the moving force behind, or actual cause
of the constitutional injury. The official policy itself must be
unconstitutional or, if not, must have been adopted with deliberate
indifference to the known or obvious fact that such constitutional
violations would result.
Official policy can arise in various forms. It usually exists in the form of
written policy statements, ordinances, or regulations, but may also arise
in the form of a widespread practice that is so common and well-settled
as to constitute a custom that fairly represents municipal policy. A policy
is official only when it results from the decision or acquiescence of the
municipal officer or body with final policymaking authority over the
2
subject matter of the offending policy.
Although an official policy can render a municipality culpable, there can
be no municipal liability unless it is the moving force behind the
constitutional violation. In other words, a plaintiff must show direct
causation, i.e., that there was a direct causal link between the policy and
the violation.
A plaintiff must show that, where the official policy itself is not facially
unconstitutional, it was adopted with deliberate indifference as to its
known or obvious consequences. Deliberate indifference is a degree of
culpability beyond mere negligence; it must amount to an intentional
choice, not merely an unintentionally negligent oversight.
James v. Harris County, 577 F.3d 612, 617-18 (5th Cir. 2009) (punctuation and
citations omitted).
However, “[w]hen a municipality’s final policy and decision maker in a single
action directly and intentionally deprives a person of a federal constitutional right, .
. . the person need not show that a policy or custom caused his injury in order to
recover. In such a case, the municipality’s action is deemed to be the direct cause or
moving force behind the deprivation of right and injury.” Coggin v. Longview Indep.
Sch. Dist., 289 F.3d 326, 333 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Bd. of County Comm’ners v. Brown,
520 U.S. 397, 402-04, 117 S. Ct. 1382, 137 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1997)). “To prove liability
under the single-incident exception, a plaintiff must at least show (1) that the
defendant acted with deliberate indifference by disregarding a known or obvious
consequence of his action and (2) that there is a direct causal link between the
defendant’s action and the deprivation of federal rights.” Waltman v. Payne, 535 F.3d
342, 350 (5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, a single action by one who establishes
governmental policy is sufficient to impose municipal liability in certain circumstances.
3
Id. (citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481, 106 S. Ct. 1292, 89 L. Ed.
2d 452 (1997)).
Plaintiffs alleged that Sheriff Gene Walters participated in the conspiracy to
deprive Bivens, Ruffin, and Dixon of their constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs
alleged that Hopstein, Brown, and Howell bragged to Sheriff Walters about beating
Dixon. Plaintiffs also alleged that Sheriff Walters threatened Bivens while brandishing
a knife, saying: “You niggers come down here from California and think you can kill
a white woman and get away with it. Something should be done to you.” Finally,
Plaintiffs alleged that Sheriff Walters formed the investigative task force that framed
Bivens, Ruffin, and Dixon.
“In Mississippi, sheriffs are final policymakers for their respective department’s
law enforcement decisions made within their counties.” Id. Therefore, as Walters was
the County’s final policymaker, the County may be liable for his participation in the
events giving rise to this suit, and Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible
municipal liability claim under Section 1983.
B.
Failure to Train/Supervise
“Under section 1983, supervisory officials are not liable for the actions of
subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability.” Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 397
F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 2005). “To establish § 1983 liability against supervisors, the
plaintiff must show that: (1) the [supervisor] failed to supervise or train the officer; (2)
a causal connection existed between the failure to supervise or train and the violation
of the plaintiff’s rights; and (3) the failure to supervise or train amounted to deliberate
4
indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Id. “[T]he misconduct of a
subordinate must be conclusively linked to the action or inaction of the supervisor,”
and the deliberate indifference standard is a ‘stringent’ one, requiring that ‘the
supervisory actor disregarded a known consequence of his action.” Zarnow v. City of
Wichita Falls, TX, 614 F.3d 161, 169-70 (5th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs alleged that Sheriff Gene Walters participated in and supervised the
conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights. Specifically, they alleged that
other officers bragged to him about beating Dixon, and that he threatened Bivens while
brandishing a knife. Finally, Plaintiffs alleged that Sheriff Walters formed the
investigative task force that framed Bivens, Ruffin, and Dixon. These facts are
sufficient to state a claim that Sheriff Walters failed to supervise his subordinates, and
as Walters was the final policymaker with respect to all law enforcement decisions in
Forrest County, Waltman, 535 F.3d at 350, they are sufficient to state a failure-tosupervise claim against Forrest County.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court denies Forrest County’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings [264].
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 23rd day of February, 2016.
s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?