Blount v. Kay
| Decision Date | 19 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | c/w CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15cv404-DPJ-FKB,CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14cv336-DPJ-FKB |
| Parties | WINDELL C. BLOUNT PLAINTIFF v. PETRA KAY, FAMILIES FIRST RESOURCE CENTER DIRECTOR DEFENDANT consolidated with WINDELL C. BLOUNT, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
This pro se civil-rights case is before the Court on Defendants Mississippi Department of Human Services, Richard Berry, Linda Slaughter, Walley Naylor, Ruth Ann Williams, Nelene Ledford, Sequoia Eubanks, Andreal Harper, Vernassia Harbin, and Judy Price's ("Defendants") Motion to Dismiss [5]. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the Motion should be granted.
In very general terms, the four pro se Plaintiffs in this case, Windell Blount, Christopher Kelly-Patton, James Evans, and Wanda Kilgore, complain about their treatment by the Mississippi Department of Human Services ("MDHS") and its employees with respect to child-custody, visitation, and child-support matters. The complaint includes twenty-eight counts, each of which asserts both federal and state-law claims against the thirteen defendants.
This is not Plaintiffs' first suit against these defendants. On April 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed civil action no. 3:14-cv-336-DPJ-FKB ("Blount I") involving the same parties and asserting the same federal claims raised in this action.1 On January 5, 2015, the Court entered an order in Blount I dismissing all claims against the State and all official-capacity claims against the individual defendants based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Jan. 5, 2015 Order [43]. Dismissal was without prejudice to refiling in state court, id., and Plaintiffs later filed the instant case ("Blount II") in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, on April 23, 2015. In Blount II, Plaintiffs asserted the same federal claims based on the same alleged conduct as presented in Blount I, but they also re-labeled those claims as invoking both federal and state law. Plaintiffs also asserted four new counts, each of which were premised on both federal and state law. Finally, they added new averments regarding Defendant Ruth Ann Williams and a new defendant in O.J. Paige.
Defendants removed Blount II to this Court on June 3, 2015, see Notice of Removal [1], and two days later, the Court entered another order in Blount I dismissing all individual-capacity claims brought against the state employees. See June 5, 2015 Order [65]. After that Order, the only remaining claims in Blount I are those against Defendant Petra Kay, who did not join in either motion to dismiss. The two cases were then consolidated.
On July 1, 2015, Defendants (other than Kay and Paige) moved to dismiss Blount II under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed two non-substantive Responses [10, 11], Defendants replied [14], and Plaintiffs filed an additional memorandum inopposition to Defendants' Reply [15]. The Court, having reviewed the parties' submissions and the relevant authorities, is now prepared to rule.
In considering a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the "court accepts 'all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'" Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)). But Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. at 555 (citations and footnote omitted).
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). It follows that "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 'show[n]'—'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). "This standard 'simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of' the necessary claims or elements."In re S. Scrap Material Co., LLC, 541 F.3d 584, 587 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
When, as here, a party represents himself, the complaint is "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir.1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted). But "regardless of whether the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or is represented by counsel, 'conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.'" Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
All twenty-eight claims in Blount II are premised on both federal and state law, and Defendants' arguments apply generically to each claim. The court will therefore address those issues as they apply to the federal claims before addressing the state-law claims.
Defendants offer two primary arguments for dismissal: first, that they are immune from liability in federal court; and second, that they are not "person[s]" subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the latter prevails, the Court will not address the former.
Section 1983 provides that:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunitiessecured 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 (emphasis added). It is well established that plaintiffs may not sue a state 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. And here, there is no doubt MDHS is an arm of the state of Mississippi. See, e.g., Pollard v. Hinds Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., No. 3:13cv324-DPJ-FKB, 2014 WL 5324384, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 17, 2014); Williams v. Berry, 977 F. Supp. 2d 621, 628 (S.D. Miss. 2013). Any § 1983 claims against MDHS are dismissed with prejudice.
It is equally well established that "a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office." See, e.g., Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471 (1985). Such suits are thus "no different from a suit against the state itself." Will, 491 U.S. at 71. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that "neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons' under § 1983." Id. All official-capacity claims under § 1983 are therefore dismissed with prejudice. See Klingler v. Univ. of S. Miss., USM, 612 F. App'x 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2015) ().2
Defendants contend that this Court's judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to these claims in Blount I is entitled to preclusive weight based on collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. Defs.' Mem. [6] at 12-13. Because the Court finds collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, to be applicable under the circumstances presented, it will not address res judicata, or claim preclusion. "Preclusion rules deter repetitive and piecemeal litigation by preventing the relitigation of issues that have been finally decided and the assertion of claims covering transactions that have already been disputed in court." In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 932 (5th Cir. 1999). Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, "bars successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim." Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Under federal collateral-estoppel rules, the doctrine applies only if the following three elements are satisfied:
(1) the issue at stake must be identical to the one involved in the prior action; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action; and (3) the determination of the issue in the prior action must have been a part of the judgment in that earlier action.3
In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d at 925. With regard to the second element, an issue is "actually litigated" when it is "properly raised by the pleadings, submitted for a determination, and actually determined." Matter of Gober, 100 F.3d 1195, 1203 (5th Cir. 1996).
Here, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial