Maas v. Moran
| Decision Date | 16 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO. 1:11CV287-LG-RHW |
| Parties | JOHN MAAS PLAINTIFF v. CONNIE MORAN; RICK BENWARD; THE CITY OF OCEAN SPRINGS; and JOHN DOES 1-15 DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
BEFORE THE COURT are the [36, 38] Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the City of Ocean Springs, Mississippi ("the City") and Defendants Connie Moran and Rick Benward in their individual capacities. Plaintiff John Maas filed this action against the City, Moran, and Benward on July 18, 2011, alleging his rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when he was arrested for petit larceny on May 31, 2009. He brings his constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Maas also alleges a number of state law claims against Defendants Moran and Benward.1 Plaintiff Maas has filed a response opposing the Motions, and Defendants have replied. Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the relevant legal authority, the Court finds that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment should be granted.
The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to Maas as the nonmovant. In 2009, Defendant Connie Moran was the mayor of Ocean Springs, and was running for reelection. Scott Walker was also a candidate for mayor. According to the pleadings and evidence in the record, Plaintiff Maas served the Scott Walker campaign by building and installing campaign signs. Defendant Benward is a reserve Ocean Springs police officer who also serves as a school security officer for the School District.
On or about April 22, 2009, Benward was at work at Ocean Springs High School, and while taking his lunch break, observed a white pick-up truck park across the street at Cox's Barbershop. According to Benward, the truck pulled a trailer filled with Scott Walker campaign signs. (Pl. Ex. A 13, 16, ECF No. 49-1). Benward observed the driver exit the vehicle, remove a Connie Moran for Mayor campaign sign that was posted near the barbershop, and place the Moran sign in the bed of the truck. Id. at 13. Benward described the individual as a white male who wore jeans, a white t-shirt, a baseball cap, and had curly brown hair. Benward did not attempt to intervene or take any action at that time, but later informed Connie Moran of what he had seen. Id. at 14-15, 31. Benward has stated that he did not recognize Maas as the driver of the truck at that time, but that he described the individual to Moran, and Moran concluded it was Maas based on his description. (Id. at 27-28, 32). Moran has testified that when Benward described the individual to her, she and that she was familiar with Maas. (Id. at 38-39, 41, 43, 48, 54-55).
On Sunday, May 31, 2009, Moran swore a criminal complaint against Plaintiff Maas for petit larceny, and alleged he had taken and carried away her political campaign sign. (Pl. Ex. G, ECF No. 49-7). The complaint bears Moran's name and signature, and does not mention her title as Mayor. Officer Steven Riley took Moran's report, and the Offense Form lists "Connie Moran" as the victim, and "Mayor; City of Ocean Springs" in the designated space for the victim's occupation/employer. (Def. Ex. O, ECF No. 38-15). The narrative states that Moran told Officer Riley that "she was advised of the theft by Officer Benward of the Ocean Springs Police Department." (Id.)
An Ocean Springs Municipal Court Judge issued a warrant of arrest. (Def. Ex. I, ECF No. 36-9). Maas was arrested, and found guilty of petit larceny on September 16, 2009. He was fined in the amount of $270.00. (Def. Ex. M, ECF No. 36-13). Maas appealed to the County Court of Jackson County, and Judge T. Larry Wilson held a hearing and heard testimony from Moran, Benward, and Maas on July 1, 2010. (Pl. Ex. A, ECF No. 49-1). Moran testified that Benward had described the incident to her, and she had sworn the complaint after becoming frustrated that a number of her campaign signs were stolen during her campaign. (Id. at 38-40). Benward testified about his observation of the incident, and that Maas was the man he observed take Moran's sign. (Id. at 13-15, 29). Maas testified that he and Benward knew one another at the time of the alleged theft, and thatthere had been animosity between them prior to this incident. (Id. at 64-65). Therefore, Maas claims, Benward would have recognized Maas if he had actually seen him take Moran's sign, and Benward was not truthful when he claimed that he was sure Maas had taken the sign. (Id. at 74). Maas also testified that he was "Scott Walker's only sign man," and that he used his white pick-up truck to carry Scott Walker signs, but he never pulled a trailer behind his truck. (Id. at 59, 61, 67). He also testified that he had "the only work truck in the Walker campaign." (Id. at 69).
Judge Wilson entered an ordering finding that while Moran had probable cause to file the affidavit against Maas, the City had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Maas had committed petit larceny. (Pl. Ex. F, ECF No. 49-6). Judge Wilson specifically noted that there was a discrepancy between Benward's description of Maas's vehicle and a photo of Maas's truck, and that he did not find Benward's testimony to be credible. On July 30, 2009, Maas filed a declaration against Moran in the Justice Court of Jackson County seeking money damages for "false arrest," "public embarrassment," and "false imprisonment." (Def. Ex. J, ECF No. 36-10). Moran filed a counter-claim for damages pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-1 and Miss. R. Civ. P. 11, alleging that Maas's action was frivolous. (Def. Ex. K, ECF No. 36-11). The Justice Court entered a Judgment in favor of Moran and awarded damages in the amount of $500.00. (Def. Mem. 5 (¶29), ECF No. 37; Def. Ex. L, ECF No. 36-12).
Maas filed his Complaint in this Court on July 18, 2011, alleging claimsunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as state law against the City and Moran and Benward in their official and individual capacities. As noted above, Maas's claims against Moran and Benward in their official capacities, and his state law claims against the City, have been dismissed. See Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 14. Defendants now move for summary judgment on all of the remaining claims.
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery on file, together with any affidavits, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once Defendants have satisfied this requirement, Maas, as the plaintiff with the burden of proof at trial, bears the burden of proof at the summary judgment stage to show that the motion should not be granted. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-25 (1986). He must direct the court to evidence in the record sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial; that is, he must come forward with evidence establishing each of the challenged elements of his case upon which he will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 323-24. Maas may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in his pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. SeeAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256-57 (1986).
Maas's remaining claim against the City of Ocean Springs is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His Amended Complaint alleges that his arrest warrant was "issued pursuant to a policy or custom and said policy or custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation," and that Moran, as well as others, "implemented the policy at issue." (Am. Compl. 4 (¶17)).
Under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), to establish liability on the part of the City under section 1983, Maas must show his alleged injury was caused by (1) "a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision that is officially adopted and promulgated by the municipality's lawmaking officers," or (2) "a persistent widespread practice of city officials or employees, which ... is so common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents municipal policy." See Bennett v. City of Slidell, 735 F.2d 861, 862 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc), cert denied, 472 U.S. 1016 (1985). Monell established that a municipality may be sued under section 1983 where a custom or policy has caused a constitutional deprivation, but not "for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents." Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. In other words, municipal liability does not attach based on a theory ofrespondeat superior.2
There is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Maas's arrest, and therefore his alleged injury, was caused by an official policy of the City of Ocean Springs. Maas has not presented any evidence to show the existence of a policy that caused a constitutional deprivation. As set forth above, his complaint blames a "policy or custom" for his arrest, but does not specify what policy or custom caused his arrest warrant to be issued. In response to Defendants' Motions, Maas asserts that it was the "custom of the police department" to "do what Moran wanted," but he does not point to any facts or evidence in support of this conclusion. (Pl. Mem. 14, ECF No. 51). Bare allegations, offered without proof, are insufficient to support a claim that there existed a policy or custom which was the moving force behind anyalleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial