Mills v. Adams County Board of Supervisors

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL as out herein. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 6/25/2018 (Copy mailed to plaintiff.) (cwl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY DUANE MILLS, # 207420
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18cv15-DCB-MTP

ADAMS COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Pro se
Plaintiff Anthony Duane Mills brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Mississippi Wrongful Conviction and Incarceration Act, Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-44-1.
The Court has considered and liberally construed the pleadings.

As set forth below, the Court

holds that Defendants Adams County Board of Supervisors; Adams County Sheriff Department;
State of Mississippi; Adams County; Walter James Mackel; Matthew Will McConnelly; Deselle
Davis; Judge Patricia Dunmore; Anthony A. Heidelberg, also known as Anthony H. Brewer;
Jerry Brown; Stanley Searcy, Jr.; Tony Nichols; Tim Cotten; Southwest Mental Health; Judge
Jack Lazarus; Judge Lillie Blackmon Sanders; Adams County Civil Defense; Stan King; Latanya
Renee Mackel; Shane Doherty; Frank Smith; Merit Health; and Jackie Dennis should be
dismissed.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant action.

At the time, he was detained at

the Adams County Jail, awaiting trial for felon in possession of a weapon.
also has a pending aggravated assault charge.

He alleges that he

The twenty-nine Defendants include Adams

County and its employees; the State of Mississippi; State Judges and prosecutors; Plaintiff’s
former defense counsel; two hospitals; a Ferriday, Louisiana police officer; and a postal worker.

Generally, Plaintiff’s claims stem from a series of police encounters and judicial proceedings and
an alleged sexual assault.
First, Plaintiff complains about a series of police encounters. On June 2, 2015, Plaintiff
contends Defendant Adams County Deputies Walter James Mackel and Matthew Will
McConnelly subjected him to excessive force during an arrest.
because he was in an interracial marriage.

Plaintiff claims they did so

As a result Plaintiff asserts his ear was partially

severed but was sewn back on at Defendant Merit Health Hospital.

According to him, “an

associate” told him two years later that Mackel had placed a microchip in his ear at the time of
this incident:
because he didn’t want to get caught at my house with my ex-wife. I was told
this chip came from the Marines during Mackel’s last tour in combat. My
associate told me that I was being put all over Facebook via the chip and everyone
could see every thing [sic] I do. It’s called a mind control chip, ocular or nano
implant. If you search it online, it’s been done before to people around the
world. The federal court calls it gang stalking and domestic terrorism.
Resp. at 15.
Next, on March 3, 2016, Defendant Adams County Sheriff Travis Patten allegedly tased
Plaintiff at his home, when he attempted suicide.
The following May, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Stanley Searcy, Jr., an investigator
with the Sheriff’s Department, attempted to kill Plaintiff with a Taser. When Plaintiff was later
arrested, Defendant Major Shane Doherty, of the Adams County Metro Narcotics Unit, allegedly
told him, “I heard we lost . . . a micro-chip and I need to get it back.” Id. at 14-15.
The next encounter occurred on November 17, 2016.

While at his mother’s house,

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Deputies Lee Best and Delayne Bush arrested him without a warrant
or court order. Id. at 10. However, Plaintiff elsewhere claims that they arrested him based on
2

a civil commitment order from the Adams County Chancery Court. Id. at 4.

Allegedly Bush

falsely accused Plaintiff of pointing a gun on them during the arrest.
Finally, on June 6, 2017, Plaintiff claims he was cleaning up limbs, at the bottom of a
hill, behind his house, when he was bitten by a dog, described as a “viscious [sic] K-9.”
12.

Id. at

Defendant Deputies Dustin Mingee and Dustin Smith subsequently ran down the hill,

allegedly, and arrested Plaintiff without a warrant.
Next Plaintiff complains about judicial cases against him, which include criminal charges
and a civil commitment.

The first concerns an assault charge.

Plaintiff accuses Defendant

Deselle Davis, the bailiff with the Adams County Justice Court, of “writing up fake charges
against [Plaintiff] with . . . only accusations” of a crime being committed. Id. at 3.
Specifically, on July 29, 2016, Davis is accused of accepting and filing a complainant’s affidavit,
charging Plaintiff with simple assault.

2d Am. Compl. Ex. [11-2]. This charge was later

enhanced to aggravated assault, and he was bound over to the grand jury. 2d Am. Compl. [11]
at 1.

The enhancement was allegedly the result of Defendant Assistant District Attorney

Anthony A. Heidelberg’s advice to the prosecutor working the assault case.
In addition to being a state prosecutor, Heidelberg allegedly represented Plaintiff’s exwife in her and Plaintiff’s divorce. He contends the divorce was final on January 25, 2017.
Heidelberg purportedly had him arrested on January 1, 2017, on the charge of felon in possession
of a weapon, so he could not be present for the divorce proceedings.

Plaintiff contends, “[a]s

Assistant District Attorney in November 2016 until he took the Municipal Court Judge seat,”
Heidelberg allegedly had “pushed the weapon charge through” the court system.

Resp. at 4.

Plaintiff had been accused of pointing a gun at deputies, on November 17, 2016.

Plaintiff was

3

then sent to a mental hospital.

Once released, Defendant Major Jerry Brown of the Sheriff’s

Department, allegedly signed an arrest warrant for Plaintiff, on December 27.

He was arrested

on January 1, 2017 and later indicted.
Defendant Timothy Blalock formerly represented Plaintiff in the pending weapon case.
He alleges that Blalock worked with the Court and Sheriff to put Plaintiff in prison or an insane
asylum.

He accuses Blalock of taking “a bribe in the form of cash or the deed to his property

from the Sheriff and/or . . . Heidelberg . . . to not do anything for me.” Id. at 7-8.
Defendant Judge Lillie Blackmon Sanders presides over the felon in possession case.
Plaintiff alleges that she is biased and ignored his motions. He also complains that she has
ordered a mental evaluation.
Next, Plaintiff sues Justice Court Judge Patricia Dunmore, for signing a warrant for “fake
charges.”

Id. at 3.

She and Defendant Assistant District Attorney Tim Cotten are then

accused of remanding two cyberstalking and one telephone harassment charge against Plaintiff,
rather than acquitting him, in December of 2017.

He maintains that Judge Dunmore was

motivated by his former interracial marriage and claim that Deputy Mackel had sodomized him.
Besides the criminal cases, Plaintiff also faced a civil commitment.

Because of this, he

sues Judge Jack Lazarus for ordering that he be involuntarily committed to the State Mental
Hospital in 2016.

Plaintiff claims he was committed because of his sexual assault accusation

against Deputy Mackel.
The final set of claims stem from Plaintiff’s allegation of sexual assault. Basically
Plaintiff alleges that some have failed to investigate this claim and others have mistreated him
after he made the claim.

Plaintiff first contends that Defendant Adams County Civil Defense of

4

the Sheriff’s Department, “did not respond . . . for 30 seconds,” when Plaintiff called 911 to
report the alleged rape on March 3, 2016. Id. at 10.

Defendant Jackie Dennis is alleged to be

Deputy Mackel’s mother and to have worked in dispatch on this date.

Investigators Brown and

Searcy and Captain Nichols are also accused of refusing to investigate Plaintiff’s claim.

In

addition Plaintiff asserts Nichols threatened to mace him if he ever accused Deputy Mackel again
and that he left Plaintiff in a cell for several days. He contends that Defendant Southwest
Mental Health “keeps trying to make me be crazy,” since he reported the alleged rape. Id. at 8.
Defendant Stan King of the Ferriday Police Department is accused of trying to frame Plaintiff for
murder, in retaliation for reporting the alleged attack. Finally, Deputy Mackel’s ex-wife,
Defendant Latanya Renee Mackel is alleged to work at the Post Office in Natchez.

Plaintiff

contends she is tampering with his mail, in order to keep Deputy Mackel from getting in trouble.
Some of these claims were previously filed in other civil actions and were pending at the
time this case was filed. For instance, the June 2, 2015 excessive force claim was raised against
Deputy Mackel and McConnelly in Mills v. Mackel, civil action number 5:17cv135-KS-MTP,
which is still pending. A microchip claim against Deputy Mackel was raised in the same case.
Mills v. Mackel, 5:17cv135-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Mar. 26, 2018).

The tasing claim was first

raised against Searcy in Mills v. Patten, civil action number 5:17cv110-DCB-MTP, and again in
Mills v. Searcy, civil action number 5:17cv127-KS-MTP, which are both still pending.
sexual assault claim appears in Patten and Mackel.

The

Mackel, 5:17cv135-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.

Mar. 6, 2018); Mills v. Patten, 5:17cv110-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Nov. 28, 2017).

Plaintiff’s

failure to investigate claims and Nichols’s alleged actions are pending in Patten. Id. Plaintiff
also previously raised the claim against King in Mills v. Ware-Mills, cause number 5:17cv138-

5

DCB-MTP.
Plaintiff now proceeds in this case, specifically invoking § 1983.

He claims excessive

force, racial discrimination, unlawful searches and arrests, sexual assault, failure to investigate,
retaliation, and mail tampering.

He also complains of the state judicial proceedings. He

further sues Sheriff Patten, the Sheriff’s Department, and the County for the alleged
discrimination, since they employ some of the other Defendants.

Plaintiff sues the State, under

§ 1983, because he contends the Sheriff sometimes represents the State, and, under § 11-44-1,
for wrongful incarceration.

Finally, Plaintiff sues Frank Smith of the Narcotics Unit but does

not allege any facts against him.

On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the

Adams County Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, applies to prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis in this Court. The statute reads, in pertinent part, “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 [28 U.S.C. § 1915, 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).

6

“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 Plaintiff to proceed in
forma pauperis in this action.

His Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915.

Plaintiff brings this action, specifically invoking § 1983 and the state Wrongful
Conviction and Incarceration Act. His claims arise from police encounters, judicial
proceedings, and his sexual assault allegations. He sues the County and its employees, the State
and its Judges and prosecutors, private parties, a Louisiana police officer, and a postal worker.
ADAMS COUNTY AND ITS EMPLOYEES
I.

THE COUNTY, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
The Court first addresses the claims against Adams County, its Board of Supervisors, and

Sheriff’s Department.
be dismissed.

As Mills moves to voluntarily dismiss the Board of Supervisors, it will

This leaves the Sheriff’s Department and the County, sued, under § 1983, for

alleged racial discrimination by Sheriff’s Department employees.
A municipality may be held liable under § 1983 when its official policies or customs
violate the Constitution. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).

The

policy or custom must cause the constitutional tort. Id. at 691. “[A] municipality cannot be
held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Id.

Thus, to state a claim against

the County under § 1983, Mills must allege (1) the existence of a policymaker, and (2) an official
policy or custom (3) which is the moving force behind a constitutional violation. Piotrowski v.
City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001).
Mills alleges that Sheriff Patten is the policy maker for the County and that he has the
power to stop the alleged discrimination, which supposedly did not begin until he took office.

7

Plaintiff’s allegations, however, do not suffice to demonstrate the existence of any official
County policy, custom, or practice, or that it caused the alleged discrimination.
County merely because it employed other Defendants.

He sues the

This is insufficient to state a claim

against the County, under § 1983. The County and Sheriff’s Department will therefore be
dismissed.
II.

COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Plaintiff also sues several County employees, under § 1983, for claims arising from

police encounters, an alleged sexual assault, and criminal proceedings.

Some employees are

discussed below.
A.

DEPUTY MACKEL

Walter Mackel is accused of excessive force, implanting a microchip, and sexual assault.
These claims duplicate allegations brought previously in either Patten, Mackel, or both.

A civil

action may be dismissed if it is duplicative of another action pending in the same court.

Oliney

v. Gardner, 771 F.2d 856, 859 (5th Cir. 1985). Further, it is “‘malicious’ for a pauper to file a
lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff.”
Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993).

Because these claims were first filed in

the prior pending cases of Patten and Mackel, the claims are both duplicative and malicious.
Dismissal of these claims is without prejudice as to the other pending lawsuits of Patten and
Mackel and is with prejudice in all other respects. Id.
B.

DEPUTY MCCONNELLY

Like Mackel, McConnelly is sued for an alleged incident of excessive force.

Since this

identical claim is pending in the prior filed case of Mackel, it is duplicative and malicious, and

8

will be dismissed.
C.

DESELLE DAVIS

Plaintiff accuses Davis, the bailiff with the Justice Court, of filing a complainant’s
affidavit, which Plaintiff contends falsely accuses him of simple assault.
There “is no freestanding constitutional right” to be free from false charges. Castellano
v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 945 (5th Cir. 2003). On the other hand, the knowing use of
fabricated evidence may violate procedural due process or other constitutional rights. Id. at
953-54, 958.

Davis is not alleged to have known that the assault charge is false.

accepted and filed a sworn criminal complaint.
D.

He merely

This claim is frivolous.

MAJOR BROWN

Plaintiff next sues Major Brown, because he signed the arrest warrant for the allegedly
false weapon charge and purportedly refused to investigate the sexual assault allegation. As
with Davis, Plaintiff does not contend that Brown knew that the weapon charge was false;
therefore, this claim is likewise frivolous.

Since the failure to investigate claim is already

pending in Patten, this particular claim is duplicative and malicious.
E.

Brown will be dismissed.

STANLEY SEARCY

Next, Investigator Searcy is sued for allegedly tasing Plaintiff and failing to investigate
his claim against Deputy Mackel.

The identical claims are pending in the prior cases of Patten

and Searcy. The claims against Searcy are duplicate and malicious and subject to dismissal.
F.

CAPTAIN NICHOLS, CIVIL DEFENSE, AND JACKIE DENNIS

Plaintiff alleges that Captain Nichols also failed to investigate the sexual assault claims,
threatened him, and placed him in a cell.

Further, Plaintiff sues the County Civil Defense and

9

Dennis, claiming they did not answer his 911 calls.

These allegations are already pending in

Patten and will be dismissed here as duplicative and malicious.
G.

MAJOR DOHERTY

Plaintiff next claims that Major Doherty told him that Doherty “heard we” lost a
microchip and he needed it back. These are the extent of the allegations against him.
Taunting and verbal abuse do not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983. Siglar v.
Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Even threatening language accompanied by
threatening gestures by a prison official does not amount to a constitutional violation.
McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983).

Therefore, the alleged remark, even if

meant to affront Plaintiff, cannot support a claim in and of itself and is subject to sua sponte
dismissal. Id. at 146-47.
H.

FRANK SMITH

Also a County employee, Frank Smith is named as a Defendant in this case.
naming him, however, Plaintiff alleges no facts against this individual.

Other than

He will therefore be

dismissed for failure to state a claim against him upon which relief could be granted.
THE STATE, JUDGES, AND PROSECUTORS
Besides County actors, Plaintiff sues the State, members of its judiciary, and prosecutors.
Plaintiff asserts a § 1983 claim of racial discrimination and a state law claim of wrongful
incarceration against the State.
I.

He also complains of the various judicial proceedings.

THE STATE
Plaintiff first sues the State, under § 1983, for racial discrimination, because he contends

that Sheriff Patten is also a policy maker for the State.

10

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. . . .
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).

Therefore, the § 1983 claim is dismissed.

As for Plaintiff’s claim under § 11-44-1, it provides a cause of action against the State for
innocent people, wrongly convicted of a felony.

Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 11-44-1, 11-44-5.

Plaintiff admits that he has not been convicted of the complained of charges.

This claim is

therefore frivolous.
II.

JUDGES
Plaintiff next complains of various judicial actions taken by Judge Dunmore, Judge

Lazarus, and Judge Sanders.

Plaintiff contends that Judge Dunmore signed a warrant for false

charges and did not acquit him of cyberstalking and telephone harassment.
allegedly acted out of discrimination and retaliation.
Plaintiff involuntarily committed.
possession of a weapon case.

In doing so, she

Judge Lazarus is sued because he had

He sues Judge Sanders for rulings made in the felon in

He accuses her of being biased, ignoring motions, and ordering a

mental evaluation.
These claims are about actions taken in the course and scope of Judges Dunmore,
Lazarus, and Sanders’s roles as judges over Plaintiff’s criminal and civil cases.

A judge enjoys

absolute immunity from a civil action when performing within his or her judicial capacity.

11

Hulsey v. Owens, 63 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1995).

“Absolute immunity is immunity from suit

rather than simply a defense against liability, and is a threshold question ‘to be resolved as early
in the proceedings as possible.’” Id. (quoting Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir.
1994)).

Judicial immunity can be overcome only by a showing that the actions complained of

were non-judicial in nature, or by showing that the actions were taken in the absence of all
jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals announced a four factor test to determine whether a
judge acted within the scope of his judicial capacity. Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 515 (5th
Cir. 2005). The four factors are:
(1) whether the precise act complained of is a normal judicial function; (2)
whether the acts occurred in the courtroom or appropriate adjunct spaces such as
the judge’s chambers; (3) whether the controversy centered around a case pending
before the court; and (4) whether the acts arose directly out of a visit to the judge
in his official capacity.
Id. at 515. In applying the four factors to the facts alleged, it is clear that the Judges are
absolutely immune from this lawsuit.

The decisions as to whether to sign a warrant, dismiss a

case, involuntarily commit someone, order a mental evaluation, and when to rule are clearly
within the normal judicial functions that arose out of their respective official capacities.
Furthermore, there is no indication that any of their actions occurred outside the courtroom or
their individual chambers.

The controversy undisputedly centered around cases that were

pending before Judge Dunmore, Judge Lazarus, and Judge Sanders.

Consequently, this Court

finds that Mills cannot maintain this action against these Judges.
III.

PROSECUTORS
The two prosecutors sued are Heidelberg and Cotten.

12

Heidelberg is sued for allegedly

enhancing the assault charge, pushing the weapon charge, and conspiring with defense counsel to
wrongly convict Plaintiff in the latter case.

Cotten—the prosecutor in the cyberstalking and

harassment case—is sued, because he moved to have these charges dismissed without prejudice.
A prosecutor enjoys “the same absolute immunity under § 1983 that the prosecutor
enjoys at common law.”

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976).

Prosecutorial

immunity covers conduct that is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal
process.” Id. at 430. This immunity extends to “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the
State’s case.” Id. at 431.

Absolute immunity can encompass claims that a prosecutor

conspired with defense counsel to wrongly convict the defendant. Marts v. Hines, 68 F.3d 134,
135-36 (5th Cir. 1995); Mills v. Crim. Dist. Ct., 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988); Russell v.
Millsap, 781 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 1985).
Heidelberg and Cotten are being sued for starting criminal prosecutions and the alleged
manner in which they were pursued. Because the attorneys’ conduct was intimately associated
with the judicial phase of the criminal cases, these two are entitled to dismissal.
MEDICAL DEFENDANTS
The next set of Defendants are two medical providers, Southwest Mental Health and
Merit Health.
I.

SOUTHWEST MENTAL HEALTH
Plaintiff accuses Southwest Mental of “trying to make [him] be crazy.” Resp. at 8.

These are the extent of the allegations against this Defendant. He does not describe how or
when Southwest acted. The allegations are vague, conclusory and fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

13

II.

MERIT HEALTH
All that is alleged against Merit Health is that it was the hospital where Plaintiff’s ear was

treated after being allegedly injured. He fails to allege any harm, much less a constitutional
violation. This Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous.
STAN KING
The next Defendant is King, a Louisiana police officer, accused of attempting to frame
Plaintiff for murder.

Because this exact claim is already pending in Ware-Mills, this claim is

duplicative and malicious.
MS. MACKEL
Plaintiff next sues Latanya Mackel under § 1983, claiming she is a United States postal
worker, who is somehow tampering with his mail.
The United States postal worker is a federal actor.
§ 1983.

Therefore she may not be sued under

Evans v. Ball, 168 F.3d 856, 863 n.10 (5th Cir. 1999).

This claim is frivolous.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
Defendant Adams County Board of Supervisors should be, and is hereby, dismissed without
prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the claims against Defendants
Adams County Sheriff Department, State of Mississippi, Adams County, Deselle Davis, Latanya
Renee Mackel, and Shane Doherty are dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the claims against Defendant
Walter James Mackel are duplicative and malicious and are dismissed without prejudice to the
prior pending lawsuits of Mills v. Patten, cause number 5:17cv110-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss.), and

14

Mills v. Mackel, cause number 5:17cv135-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.), and are dismissed with
prejudice in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the claim against Defendant
Matthew Will McConnelly is duplicative and malicious and is dismissed without prejudice to the
prior pending lawsuit of Mackel and with prejudice in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Judge Patricia
Dunmore; Judge Jack Lazarus; Judge Lillie Blackmon Sanders; Anthony A. Heidelberg, also
known as Anthony H. Brewer; and Tim Cotten are immune and dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Southwest Mental
Health and Merit Health are dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
against them upon which relief could be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Jerry Brown is
dismissed.

The due process claim against him is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

The

failure to investigate claim against this Defendant is duplicative and malicious and is dismissed
without prejudice to the prior pending lawsuit of Patten and with prejudice in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the claims against Defendant
Stanley Searcy, Jr., are duplicative and malicious.

They are dismissed without prejudice to the

prior pending lawsuits of Patten, and the excessive force claim is also dismissed without
prejudice to the prior case of Mills v. Searcy, cause number 5:17cv127-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.).
The claims are dismissed with prejudice in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the claims against Defendants
Tony Nichols, Adams County Civil Defense, and Jackie Dennis are duplicative and malicious.

15

They are dismissed without prejudice to the prior pending lawsuit of Patten and with prejudice in
all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the claims against Defendant Stan
King are duplicative and malicious.

They are dismissed without prejudice to the prior pending

lawsuit of Mills v. Ware-Mills, 5:17cv138-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss.) and with prejudice in all other
respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Frank Smith is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim against him upon which relief could be
granted.

The remainder of this case shall proceed.

So ordered and adjudged, this the 25th day of June, 2018.
s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16