Brown v. Lee et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting 52 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 3/31/2021 (ab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOHNNY LEE BROWN

PLAINTIFF

vs.

CIVIL ACTION No.: 3:19-CV-33-HTW-LGI

MIKE LEE, in his official and
individual capacities as SHERIFF
OF SCOTT COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
BEFORE THIS COURT is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket no. 52], filed
by defendant Sheriff Jackie Knight (hereinafter referred to as “Sheriff Knight”). Sheriff Knight
asks this court for an order dismissing the following various claims against him: equal protection
violation; Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy; Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy; First Amendment
violation; Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 illegal search and/or seizure violation; denial of due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; denial of counsel in violation
of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 bystander
liability; various Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter referred to as
“RICO”); a Monell claim; a Mississippi state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress; and a Mississippi state law claim for assault and battery.
According to Sheriff Knight, plaintiff failed to allege any facts which support a finding that
he acted unconstitutionally toward plaintiff. Sheriff Knight also says that plaintiff failed to plead
any of the above-mentioned causes of action against himself with particularity.
Plaintiff responds that “[p]laintiff only asserts prospective, injunctive/declaratory relief
against [Sheriff] Knight”. Plaintiff also responds that “[p]laintiff concedes he does not seek to
recover monetary damages for any claim against [Sheriff] Knight.” According to plaintiff, he

1

“seeks injunctive relief prohibiting [Sheriff] Knight from violating Plaintiff’s constitutional
liberties with respect to [allegedly] retaliatory criminal charges that have been brought against
[plaintiff] in Newton County[, Mississippi].”
Sheriff Knight did not make any specific argument against the injunctive, prospective relief
that plaintiff is seeking. Plaintiff effectively conceded Sheriff Knight’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings. Accordingly, this court finds Sheriff Knight’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
[Docket no. 52] well-taken and should be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Sheriff Knight’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [Docket no. 52] is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims for monetary damages are hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff shall file a more definite statement about
the factual and legal basis for the injunctive, prospective relief that plaintiff is seeking.
Plaintiff must file his statement within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED this the 31st day of March, 2021.
s/ HENRY T. WINGATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2