Gorman v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-cv-00204-GHD-JMV. |
| Citation | 258 F.Supp.3d 761 |
| Parties | Summer GORMAN, Plaintiff v. State of MISSISSIPPI, Mississippi Gaming Commission, Tunica County, Mississippi Department of Public Safety, and Robert Sharp, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Christi Rena McCoy, Philip Halbert Neilson, Philip Halbert Neilson, Attorney at Law, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff.
Douglas T. Miracle, Krissy Casey Nobile, Mississippi Attorney General's Office, Jackson, MS, for Defendants.
Presently before the Court are the following: (1) a motion to dismiss [8] filed by Defendants State of Mississippi, Mississippi Gaming Commission, Mississippi Department of Public Safety, and Robert Sharp in his official capacity (the ); and (2) a motion for judgment on the pleadings [17] filed by Defendant Robert Sharp ("Defendant Sharp") in his individual capacity. Upon due consideration, the Court finds that the State Defendants' motion to dismiss [8] should be granted, and Defendant Sharp's motion for judgment on the pleadings [17] should be granted in part and denied in part.
On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff Summer Gorman ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint [1] against Defendants the State of Mississippi, the Mississippi Gaming Commission, Tunica County, the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, and Sharp (collectively, "Defendants") in connection with the death of Plaintiff's husband, the Decedent John Gorman (the "Decedent"), who was tragically shot and killed during a firearms training exercise. Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : (a) unreasonable seizure and excessive force pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Mississippi Gaming Commission and Sharp in his official and individual capacity;1 (b) reckless indifference to the Decedent's serious medical needs pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Tunica County;2 (c) violation of due process on a state-created danger theory pursuant to the Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Mississippi Gaming Commission, Mississippi Department of Public Safety, and Sharp in his official and individual capacity;3 and (d) possibly, failure to train/supervise pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment against the Mississippi Gaming Commission.4 Plaintiff's complaint further provides that she urges the following state law claims against Defendants, though there are no specific allegations pled in the complaint as such: (a) assault and battery, (b) negligence, and (c) wrongful death.5 Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees.
The Mississippi Gaming Commission is a state agency and entity that operates under the Gaming Control Act, Mississippi Code § 75–76–1 to -313, and maintains offices throughout the State of Mississippi including Jackson, Tunica, and Biloxi.6 The Decedent was a special agent and firearms instructor with the Mississippi Gaming Commission who was promoted to Director of Investigations;7 the Decedent was married to Plaintiff and had two children.8 Defendant Sharp is a former special agent and firearms instructor with the Mississippi Gaming Commission.9
The Mississippi Gaming Commission provides training to its personnel,10 including firearms training, which Plaintiff alleges is mandatory by the State of Mississippi and the Mississippi Gaming Commission for special agents and occurs at least on a quarterly basis.11 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sharp, firearms instructor of the Mississippi Gaming Commission, and R.R. "Sonny" Dyer, chief firearms inspector of the Mississippi Gaming Commission, scheduled a two-day training session on January 20–21, 2015 at the Tunica County Firing and Qualification Range for Certified Law Enforcement Agents; Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Sharp was assigned to be the lead firearms instructor in charge of the training.12 Plaintiff maintains that the Mississippi Gaming Commission informed the Decedent that he was required to attend the training.13
On January 20, 2015, firearms training was conducted at the Tunica County Firing and Qualification Range for Certified Law Enforcement Agents; no known incidents were reported that day.14 However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sharp made the decision to conduct the firearms training on January 21, 2015 at another site not designated as a firearms range.15
The training exercise required that the trainees draw "dummy" guns, not actual firearms, from their holsters and pretend to fire the dummy guns at role-playing aggressors.16 However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sharp "did NOT remove his loaded real firearm after everyone else involved did," that is, "[Defendant] Sharp participated in a training exercise requiring that firearms be drawn from holsters and fired at role-players, however kept his real firearm in his holster."17 During this training, the Decedent, whom Defendants maintain was also a firearms instructor during the training, acted as an aggressor to the trainees.18 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sharp "became agitated" with how one of the trainees/special agents was responding to the role-playing.19 In demonstrating to the trainee/special agent how to properly perform the exercise, Defendant Sharp pulled his real firearm and shot the Decedent in the chest.20 Emergency personnel were called to the shooting scene.21 Plaintiff alleges that the emergency personnel were under the direction of Defendant Tunica County and that "[d]espite hospitals and a trauma center (The Med in Memphis) being located in ‘very’ close proximity, a command decision was made to NOT transport [the Decedent] to a hospital or trauma center."22 The Decedent died shortly thereafter from the gunshot wound
he sustained during the firearms training exercise.23
The Mississippi Bureau of Investigation was tasked with conducting an investigation of the shooting; Captain Peter Clinton was the investigator who conducted the investigation and prepared the investigative report.24 Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Clinton's report was "slanted" and "opinionated," "[i]nstead of a purely factual report," and stated that Defendant Sharp "was ‘[e]xtremely [n]egligent’ in his actions."25 Plaintiff further alleges that Mr. Clinton's report was presented to the prosecutor and Grand Jury; the Grand Jury returned a no bill.26 Plaintiff avers that shortly thereafter Mr. Clinton was "removed from M[ississippi] B[ureau of] I [nvestigation] employment."27
On November 7, 2016, the State Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss [8] pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff subsequently filed a response, and the State Defendants filed a reply.
Defendant Sharp then filed his answer [10] to the complaint. Subsequently, on December 12, 2016, Defendant Sharp filed the present motion for judgment on the pleadings [17] pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the individual-capacity claims asserted against him. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion, and Defendant Sharp filed a reply.
On December 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for limited discovery [19] and to stay any ruling on Defendant Sharp's motion for judgment on the pleadings pertaining to qualified immunity. Defendant Sharp filed a response, and Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court denied that motion in an Order [22] dated February 6, 2017, finding that no further factual development appeared necessary to determine the qualified immunity issue at the Rule 12(c) stage.
With the foregoing factual and procedural background in mind, the Court turns to the issues before it.
As stated above, two dispositive motions are before the Court: the State Defendants' motion to dismiss [8] all official-capacity claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and Defendant Sharp's motion for judgment on the pleadings [17] on the individual-capacity claims against Defendant Sharp pursuant to Rule 12(c). The Court examines each motion in turn.
The Court first examines the State Defendants' motion to dismiss all official-capacity claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and due to the State Defendants not being persons for Section 1983 purposes pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
"When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, ... courts must consider the jurisdictional challenge first." McCasland v. City of Castroville, Tex., 478 Fed.Appx. 860, 860 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Wolcott v. Sebelius , 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2011) ; Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1994) ). This " ‘prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice.’ " Id. at 860–61 (quoting Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)); accord Hitt v. City of Pasadena, Tex., 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion allows a party to challenge the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. " ‘[A] factual attack under Rule 12(b)(1) may occur at any stage of the proceedings, and plaintiff bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist.’ " Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co. , 669 F.3d 214, 223 (5th Cir. 2012) .
The Fifth Circuit has instructed:
A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case. In considering a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, the district court is free to weigh the evidence and...
To continue reading
Request your trial