Wess v. Ms. Dept. of Corrections et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing Mississippi Department of Corrections. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 3/7/2012 (SM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
JAMES ONEAL WESS, # 19501
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV29-HTW-LRA
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, CHRISTOPHER EPPS,
OFFICER HOLMAN, and OFFICER
BROWN
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MDOC
BEFORE THE COURT is pro se plaintiff James Oneal Wess’s Complaint [1] and
Response [7]. He is incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”)
and brings this action challenging the conditions of his confinement. The court has considered
and liberally construed the pleadings. Defendant MDOC is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
According to the pleadings, Wess was an inmate in protective custody at the Mississippi
State Penitentiary. He alleges that on September 25, 2010, he was serving food trays to other
inmates. They paid Defendant Officers Holman and Brown to open the cell door. When they
opened the door, the inmates stabbed Wess twelve times. He filed this action against MDOC,
among others.
DISCUSSION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, applies to prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis in this Court. One of the provisions reads, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time
if the court determines that . . . the action . . . –(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The statute “accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose
factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “[I]n an
action proceeding under Section 1915(d), [a federal court] may consider, sua sponte, affirmative
defenses that are apparent from the record even where they have not been addressed or raised.”
Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990). “Significantly, the court is authorized to test the
proceeding for frivolousness or maliciousness even before service of process or before the filing
of the answer.” Id. The court has permitted Wess to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
His Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under Section 1915.
Wess sues MDOC for damages under Section 1983 and, construed liberally, the
Mississippi Tort Claims Act.
SECTION 1983
Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The State of Mississippi is not amenable to suit under this statute,
because “a State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). This holding likewise applies to “any governmental entities that
are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes.” Id. at 70. MDOC is
considered an arm of the State of Mississippi. Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-1; Scott v. Miss. Dep’t of
2
Corrs., No. 2:05cv2159-KS-JMR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43683 at *2 (S.D. Miss. June 12,
2006). Therefore, the Section 1983 claim against MDOC is dismissed.
MTCA
To the extent MDOC is sued under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, this claim is
likewise dismissed. The Act does not waive the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity “from
suit in federal court.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-5(4). Therefore, MDOC is dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
the Section 1983 claim against Defendant Mississippi Department of Corrections should be and
is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the State law claim is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The case will proceed against the remaining defendants.
SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of March, 2012.
s/ HENRY T. WINGATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Memorandum Opinion and Order Dismissing MDOC
Civil action no. 3:12cv29-HTW-LRA
3
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?