Ellis v. Lowndes Cnty.
| Decision Date | 06 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 1:16-CV-177-DMB-DAS,1:16-CV-177-DMB-DAS |
| Parties | JAVONTE ELLIS, Individually; and STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ex rel. Javonte Ellis PLAINTIFFS v. LOWNDES COUNTY; WILL SPANN; MIKE ARLEDGE; RON COOK; and OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
This civil rights action is before the Court on (1) Mike Arledge and Will Spann's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. #39; (2) Arledge, Spann, and Lowndes County's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. #41; and (3) Arledge, Spann, and Lowndes County's motion to dismiss, Doc. #52.
On September 29, 2016, Javonte Ellis filed a complaint in this Court naming as defendants Lowndes County, Will Spann (in his official and individual capacities), Mike Arledge (in his official and individual capacities), Ron Cook (in his official and individual capacities), and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Doc. #1. The complaint asserted state and federal claims based on an alleged false arrest of Ellis which occurred on March 27, 2015.
Cook timely answered the complaint on March 26, 2017. Doc. #16. Two months later, on May 26, 2017, Cook filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. #20.
On July 3, 2017, Ellis, with leave of the Court, filed an amended complaint against the same defendants. Doc. #31. One week later, on July 10, 2017, Cook filed an answer to the amended complaint, Doc. #32; a second motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. #33; and a motion for sanctions, Doc. #35. Ellis responded in opposition to both motions. Doc. #43; Doc. #45. Cook did not reply to either response.
On July 13, 2017, Lowndes County, Arledge, Ohio Casualty, and Spann filed a joint answer to the amended complaint. Doc. #37. The same day, Arledge and Spann filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings ("First Motion"). Doc. #39. Also that day, the County and Spann and Arledge in their official capacities filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. ("Second Motion"). Doc. #41. After seeking and receiving an extension to respond to the motions for judgment on the pleadings, Ellis filed a response addressing both motions on August 24, 2017. Doc. #49. The County, Arledge, and Spann filed a joint reply on August 31, 2017. Doc. #51.
On September 1, 2017, the County, Arledge, and Spann filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) ("Third Motion"). Doc. #52. After seeking and receiving an extension to respond to the motion to dismiss, Ellis filed a response on September 22, 2017. Doc. #56. The County, Arledge, and Spann replied on September 29, 2017. Doc. #58.
On October 17, 2017, this Court denied Cook's motions to dismiss and Cook's motion for sanctions. Doc. #60.
The moving defendants seek dismissal under both Rule 12(c) and Rule 12(b)(6). As a general matter, 12(b)(6) relief is unavailable where a moving party has filed a responsive pleading. Young v. City of Houston, 599 F. App'x 553, 554 (5th Cir. 2015). However, "[t]he standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." Edionwe v. Bailey, 860 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2017). A district court therefore may treat a post-answer 12(b)(6) motion as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, to the extent the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, such motion will be treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as with 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." Bailey, 860 F.3d at 291. A complaint meets this standard when it "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. In making this determination, a court must "view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." McLin v. Ard, 866 F.3d 682, 688 (5th Cir. 2017). "When the motion ... raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must plead specific facts that both allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the harm alleged and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity." Id. (quotation marks omitted).
During the period relevant to this litigation, Javonte Ellis was an honors student at New Hope High School in Lowndes County, Mississippi. Doc. #31 at ¶ 9. Ron Cook was a justice court judge for Lowndes County. Id. at ¶ 10. Will Spann was a detective with the Lowndes County Sheriff's Department serving under Sheriff Mike Arledge. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 57.
On or about March 27, 2015, Spann presented to Cook a charging affidavit against Ellis for the crime of sexual battery pursuant to § 97-3-65 of the Mississippi Code. Id. at ¶ 10. The affidavit1 alleges:
Javonte Ellis, being 17 years of age at the time and whose date of birth was 4/[redacted]/1997, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with a child, [MH], who was 14 years of age at the time and whose date of birth was 3/[redacted]/2000 and was thirty-six or more months younger than Javonte Ellis and not the spouse of Javonte Ellis at the time.
Doc. #39-2.2 Based on the affidavit, Cook issued a warrant for Ellis' arrest. Doc. #31 at ¶ 21. Thereafter, Ellis was publicly arrested, transported to the Lowndes County Detention Center, and jailed. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32. Sometime later, Ellis was expelled from school. Id. at ¶ 35.
Contrary to the allegation in the affidavit, Ellis was not thirty-six months older than MH and thus was not in violation of § 97-3-65. Id. at ¶ 13; see Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-65(1)(a) (). The charges against Ellis were dismissed on April 14, 2015. Doc. #31 at ¶ 40.
Ellis' amended complaint asserts: (1) § 1983 claims against Spann in his individual capacity; (2) state common law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution against Spann in his individual capacity; (3) a claim on Spann's public official bond against Spann in his individual and official capacities; (4) a claim on Spann's public official bond against Ohio Casualty; (5) derivative liability claims under Miss. Code Ann. § 19-25-19 against Arledge in his individual and official capacities; (6) a claim on Arledge's public official bond against Ohio Casualty; (7) § 1983 claims against Cook in his individual capacity; (8)state common law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution against Cook in his individual capacity; (9) a claim on Cook's public official bond against Cook in his individual and official capacities; (10) a claim on Cook's public official bond against Ohio Casualty; (11) state common law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process against the County; and (12) state common law claims for negligence, gross negligence, and reckless disregard against the County.
In the First Motion, Spann and Arledge, in their individual capacities, argue (1) the § 1983 claims brought against Spann are barred by qualified immunity and the independent intermediary doctrine; (2) all state common law claims against Spann in his individual capacity should be dismissed under the personal liability immunity provision of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act ("MTCA"); (3) Arledge cannot be held individually liable under either § 1983 or the MTCA; and (4) the public official bond claims against them both in their individual capacities are barred by the MTCA.
In the Second Motion filed by the County and Spann and Arledge in their official capacities (collectively, "County Defendants"), the County Defendants argue (1) the federal claims against them are barred by the independent-intermediary doctrine; (2) all state law claims against them which accrued while Ellis was incarcerated are barred by the inmate exception to the MTCA; and (3) the official capacity claims against Spann and Arledge should be dismissed as duplicative.
Finally, in the Third Motion, the moving defendants argue (1) the County Defendants are entitled to the dismissal of Ellis' claims for malicious prosecution and false arrest; and (2) the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims brought against Spann and Arledge in their individual capacities are time barred.
Because these motions implicate some of the same claims against the same defendants, theCourt considers the motions claim by claim, rather than motion by motion.3
Ellis' amended complaint alleges:
Doc. #31 at ¶¶ 51-52 (paragraph numbering omitted).
Ellis bases his federal claims on violations of his "Fourth Amendment right to be free from wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and prosecution without probable cause,...
To continue reading
Request your trial