Millsap v. Mississippi Department of Human Services et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting Defendant LaQuanda Barnes' 22 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant LaQuanda Barnes is dimissed from this case with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on June 9, 2014 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN DAVID MILLSAP
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-80-KS-MTP

WENDY CROSBY, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss [22] filed
by Defendant LaQuanda Barnes.
Plaintiff asserted Section 1983 claims against Defendant Barnes – the plant
manager for his former employer, Southern Hens – for violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process, and violation of the Eighth Amendment right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment.
A.

Section 1983
“A viable claim under § 1983 alleges (1) ‘a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States,’ and (2) ‘that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.’” Estate of Lance v. Lewisville
Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 1001 n. 16 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Doe ex rel. Magee
v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc)).
“The under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach merely private
conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful. A plaintiff must show that the
party charged with depriving the plaintiff of [his] federal right is an entity that can be

fairly described as a state actor.” Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Grp., Inc., 355
F.3d 345, 352 (5th Cir. 2003).
According to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [14], Defendant LaQuanda Barnes
is a plant manager for Southern Hens. He alleged no facts indicating that, at the time
of her alleged actions, she was a state actor. Accordingly, the Court grants her motion
to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against him.
B.

Employment-Related Claims
Plaintiff also asserted certain employment-related claims against Defendant

Barnes. Specifically, he contends that Barnes subjected him to an unsafe working
environment, harassed him, and overworked him. He failed, however, to specify the
law under which these employment-related claims arise.
Nothing in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint indicates that he was discriminated
against or mistreated because of any protected characteristic. Therefore, the Court will
assume that he did not intend to plead claims under Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, or
the Rehabilitation Act.1 Likewise, the Court will assume that Plaintiff did not intend

1

Even if Plaintiff intended to assert a claim against Barnes under these
federal laws, Barnes was not Plaintiff’s employer – Southern Hens was. Therefore,
she can not be individually liable under those federal employment laws. See
Nottingham v. Richardson, 499 F. App’x 368, 376 (5th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff could not
sue individual defendants in their individual capacities under ADA and
Rehabilitation Act); Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674, 686 (5th Cir. 2001)
(“ADEA provides no basis for individual liabiltiy for supervisory employees.”);
Lollar v. Baker, 196 F.3d 603, 609 (5th Cir. 1999) (plaintiff could not sue individual
supervisor under Rehabilitation Act because she was not the recipient of federal
funds); Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1994) (individuals not
liable under Title VII unless they meet statutory definition of employer).
2

to proceed under state law, in light of his failure to cite or refer to any Mississippi law
in his Amended Complaint. Indeed, Plaintiff framed all of his claims as concerning
violations of the United States Constitution. The Court concludes, therefore, that
Plaintiff claims that these alleged employment-related actions were also violations of
the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments, actionable under Section 1983. Accordingly,
the Court dismisses them for the same reason stated above.
C.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss [22] filed

by Defendant LaQuanda Barnes. Plaintiff’s claims against her are dismissed with
prejudice.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 9th day of June, 2014.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3