Reeves v. Dobbins
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:22-CV-479-TSL-MTP |
| Decision Date | 25 May 2023 |
| Parties | ROBERT HARRIS, DARIOUS HARRIS, ERIC RECMOND, MALCOLM STEWART AND PETER REEVES PLAINTIFFS v. SAM DOBBINS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, CHARLES HENDERSON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS INTERIM CHIEF OF POLICE OF LEXINGTON, MISSISSIPPI, THE CITY OF LEXINGTON; THE LEXINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CORDARIUS EPPS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, JAMES SHIERS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, JUSTIN NEWELL, IN HIS INDIVIUDAL CAPACITY, AND DERRICK SCOTT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Defendants City of Lexington, Lexington Police Department (LPD), Charles Henderson, in his individual capacity and his official capacity as Interim Chief of Police of the City of Lexington and CorDarius Epps, Justin Newell, Derrick Scott and James Shiers, in their individual capacities, have moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and defendant Sam Dobbins, in his individual capacity, has moved for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs Robert Harris, Darious Harris, Eric Redmond, Malcolm Stewart and Peter Reeves have responded to the motions and the court having considered the memoranda of authorities, together with evidence presented at the September 9, 2hel22 hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction (TRO hearing), concludes that the motions should be granted in part and denied in part, as set forth below.[1]
The five plaintiffs in this case - Robert Harris, Darious Harris, Eric Redmond, Malcolm Stewart and Peter Reeves - filed their original complaint on August 17, 2022, against the City of Lexington, Lexington's interim police chief Charles Henderson, in his individual and official capacities, and former police chief Sam Dobbins, in his individual capacity,[2]asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. Generally, plaintiffs allege that from the time that defendant Dobbins was appointed as chief of police in July 2021, defendants have engaged in an ongoing campaign of racial and retaliatory abuse and harassment of Lexington's black citizens. This alleged abuse and harassment, they allege, has included, among other things, falsely arresting black citizens, including (for retaliatory purposes) those who speak out against police misconduct; subjecting black citizens to excessive force; and violating black citizens' rights to equal protection by, among other things, setting up roadblocks exclusively in black neighborhoods. Plaintiffs charge that defendants' actions have violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be free from excessive force; their right under the First Amendment to be free from retaliation for speaking out against police harassment and abuse; and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process and to be free from excessive force.
Upon filing their complaint, plaintiffs promptly moved for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, asking the court to “enter an immediate temporary restraining order enjoining LPD from continuing its campaign of police violence and constitutional violations against Plaintiffs and other Black residents of Lexington.” A hearing was held on September 9, 2022, at which the parties presented evidence, including from plaintiffs' side the testimony of three of the five plaintiffs. By memorandum opinion and order entered September 13, the court denied plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 3, naming as additional defendants four Lexington police officers, in their individual capacities, and adding a claim that defendants have violated their right under the Privileges and Immunities Clause “to travel freely for the purpose of meeting their everyday needs and providing for their families in the State of Mississippi without unlawful interference.”
The City, Chief Henderson and the defendant officers, Epps, Shiers, Scott and Newell (Municipal Defendants), have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), or in the alternative for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, contending that plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege and/or are unable on the undisputed evidence to prove a violation of their constitutional rights. Chief Henderson and the named officers contend, further, that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to most, but not all, of the claims asserted against them. Former police chief Dobbins has separately moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against him and/or that their complaint is inadequate to overcome his qualified immunity. Although Dobbins has moved for judgment on the pleadings, and not for summary judgment, the court, in evaluating the motion, has considered evidence outside the pleadings and therefore, pursuant to Rule 12(d), the court has determined to convert his motion to a motion for summary judgment.[3]
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is required when “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). Typically on a summary judgment motion, the moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party demonstrates an absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case, then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to come forward with specific facts showing that a genuine issue for trial does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). However, a government official's good faith assertion of a qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof. Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2005). Once the official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden to show there is a genuine and material dispute as to whether qualified immunity applies. Castorena v. Zamora, 684 Fed.Appx. 360, 363 (5th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). See also Thompson v. Upshur Cty., TX, 245 F.3d 447, 456 (5th Cir. 2001) ().
When evaluating whether a genuine dispute as to any material fact exists, the court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008). In so doing, the court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor, even on a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity. See Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010) (). There is a caveat, however: The court is not bound to accept the nonmovant's version of the facts if it is conclusively contradicted by video evidence in the record. Crane v. City of Arlington, Texas, 50 F.4th 453, 461-62 (5th Cir. 2022). That said, the court may only reject a nonmovant's version of facts if the video evidence “provides so much clarity that a reasonable jury could not believe his account.” Id.
The purpose of Rule 12(c) is to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts. Great Plains Trust. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002). The standard for deciding a motion under Rule 12(c) is the same as the one for deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), namely, whether, accepting all plaintiffs' well-pleaded facts as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, they have pled “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).
To prevail on a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must (1) prove a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Anderson v. Valdez, 845 F.3d 580, 599 (5th Cir. 2016).
The City of Lexington and Chief Henderson, in his official capacity (Municipal Defendants)[4]assert, among other arguments that even if plaintiffs have alleged and/or could prove a constitutional violation, the City cannot be liable as plaintiffs have not adequately alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial