Francis v. Wroten et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting 7 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; finding as moot 7 Motion to Strike ; granting 9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/15/2017 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
TAEMAKA FRANCIS
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:16-cv-86(DCB)(MTP)

TIMOTHY WROTEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS SHERIFF OF AMITE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI;
AMITE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; AND BRIANNA ROGERS

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on defendants Sheriff Timothy
Wroten and Amite County (“the County defendants”)’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to State Law Claims or, in the
alternative, to strike jury and demand for punitive damages (docket
entry 7), and on the County defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings as to Federal Claims (docket entry 9).

The plaintiff

failed to file responsive briefs addressing the motions within the
time required by the Local Rules of this Court.

On January 27,

2017, the Court therefore ordered the plaintiff to show cause for
her failure to file responsive pleadings, and to show cause why
judgment should not be entered against her.
The plaintiff failed to respond.

(Docket entry 11).

On April 17, 2017, the Court

entered another show cause order (Docket entry 12) warning the
plaintiff that her failure to respond could result in entry of
judgment on the pleadings as well as dismissal of the plaintiff’s
complaint.

Again, the plaintiff failed to respond.

In fact, the

plaintiff has not filed any pleadings beyond her Complaint and

proofs of service of process.
The County defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(c) as they have
answered the Complaint.

“The standard for deciding a Rule 12(c)

motion is the same as with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”
Guidry v. Am. Public Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir.
2007)(citing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205
(5th Cir. 2007)).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009)(internal quotation omitted).

The plaintiff must

plead sufficient facts so that the Court may reasonably infer the
defendant’s liability for the alleged misconduct.

Id.

“[A]

plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions cannot unlock
the doors of discovery.”

Doe v. Robertson, 751 F.3d 383, 393 (5th

Cir. 2014)(internal quotations omitted).
In

her

Complaint,

the

plaintiff

claims

that

the

County

defendants (1) were grossly negligent; (2) assaulted and battered
her; and (3) intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her.
Complaint, ¶¶ V-VII.

However, the person the plaintiff alleges

assaulted her (defendant Brianna Rogers (“Rogers”)) was not an
Amite County employee but, rather, a fellow inmate.
Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to

2

protect inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates.
Farmer v, Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994); see also Horton v.
Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400-01 (5th Cir. 1995).

However, not every

injury “by one prisoner at the hands of another ... translates into
constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the
victim’s safety.”

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.

To establish a

failure-to-protect claim, the plaintiff must show that she was
detained “under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious
harm and that [the defendants] were deliberately indifferent to
[her] need for protection.” Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th
Cir. 1995).

“In order to act with deliberate indifference, ‘the

[defendants] must both be aware of the facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and [they] must also draw the inference.’”

Id. (quoting

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).
The plaintiff has failed to plead that the County defendants
had the requisite knowledge that a substantial risk of serious harm
existed prior to the incident at issue in her Complaint.

Even

assuming that the allegations in the Complaint are true, the
plaintiff has failed to show how the County defendants acted with
deliberate indifference.

Mere negligence in failing to protect a

prisoner does not form the basis of a failure-to-protect claim.
See Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990).
As previously noted, the plaintiff failed to respond to the

3

Court’s show cause order and failed to show why judgment should not
be entered against her.

On April 17, 2017, the Court extended to

the plaintiff one last opportunity to show why Judgment on the
Pleadings should not be entered against her, but the plaintiff did
not respond.

It is clear to the Court that the plaintiff has no

interest in pursuing her claims against the County defendants, and
by her inaction has conceded the County defendants’ motions.
The Court shall therefore grant the County defendants’ Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings as to State Law Claims, and shall
grant the County defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
as to Federal Claims.

The County defendants’ motion to strike is

therefore moot.
Because the Court is dismissing all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction, it shall decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction

over

defendant Rogers.

the

plaintiff’s

state

law

claims

against

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Sheriff Timothy Wroten
and Amite County’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to State
Law Claims (docket entry 7) is GRANTED, and all state law claims
against Sheriff Timothy Wroten and Amite County are dismissed with
prejudice;
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Sheriff Timothy Wroten and
Amite County’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Federal

4

Claims (docket entry 9) is GRANTED, and all federal claims against
Sheriff

Timothy

Wroten

and

Amite

County

are

dismissed

with

prejudice;
FURTHER ORDERED that the County defendants’ motion to strike
is MOOT;
FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

Court

declines

to

exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims
against defendant Brianna Rogers, and said state law claims are
dismissed without prejudice.
A Final Judgment shall issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of May, 2017.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5