Williams v. City of Yazoo
| Decision Date | 17 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No.: 3:15-CV-103-HTW-LRA |
| Parties | KYRON LA-TRELL WILLIAMS, a minor, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. CITY OF YAZOO, MISSISSIPPI, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
At approximately 1:45 a.m., on May 19, 2014, Marshawn Williams (hereinafter referred to as "Williams") an African-American male of 24 years of age, died while being incarcerated in the Yazoo City Detention Center, located in Yazoo City, Mississippi. His legal heirs contend that his last breaths were in agony while he and cellmates frantically endeavored to convince the jailors to summon him some medical attention for his death-threatening ailment.
This lawsuit represents the story of that fatal drama and the events which framed its backdrop. The storytellers are predictable: one version of woe and police neglect told by the heirs and their supporters; the other version of police exculpability supplied by the Yazoo City police.
Overlapping both versions are various undisputed facts. Williams and his live-in girlfriend had a verbal argument turned physical with each party striking the other; with the girlfriend's brother striking Williams with a pipe or bedrail; while Williams had a blood clotting disorder, which was aggravated, leading to Williams' death in the midst of Yazoo Police Officers who failed or refused to provide Williams, in spite of his alleged pleas for such, any medical care which could have saved his life.
The parties have submitted thirteen (13) depositions and a potpourri of documents in their respective campaigns for victory - the plaintiffs seeking monetary damages; the defendants in search of vindication.
Overarching whatever the ultimate facts eventually will reveal is the law of this litigation, the clarifying onus placed upon the judge to announce in this hearing directed not at a determination of the merits of this debate, but at a determination whether this lawsuit owns the factual and legal muscle to power a trial and, if so, what claims and which defendants are to remain after this inquiry.
The juridical procedural approach which captures our attention is the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket no. 98]. Over the lengthy course of this litigation, this court has met often with the parties, to hear argument and to narrow the issues.1 Those days are now past and with both sides entrenched in their stated positions, this court must end the logjam and announce its decision.
The plaintiffs herein are: Kyron La-Trell Williams, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Lavina Smith (hereinafter referred to as "Lavina"); Lavina in her individual capacity2; Lavina on behalf of all wrongful death beneficiaries of Marshawn Williams; and Donnie Williams (hereinafter referred to as "Donnie"), Williams' mother.
The defendants herein are: the City of Yazoo, Mississippi; the Yazoo City Police Department; Andre Lloyd; Patrick Jaco; Chris Dean; Clifton Tilmon3; Arthur Thompson; Kenyon Banks; Tracey Langston; Artis Harris and various unknown officers and shift supervisors. The City of Yazoo and the Yazoo City Police Department will be referred to in this memorandum opinion as "the City defendants". The individual officers and jailers will be referred to under their individual names or as the "individual defendants".
The intervenor-plaintiffs herein are: the Estate of Marshawn Williams; and Za-Riya Williams.
The principal non-party fact actors who may be called as witnesses are: Lavina's brother, Calvin Smith, who allegedly struck Williams with the metal object; Lavina's cousin, Brittany Smith; Lavina's step-uncle, who name is unknown to this court; Robert Cheatham, who was Williams' cellmate on the night of Williams' death; Desi Parker and Earnest Diew, who were inmates at the Yazoo City Detention Center, but in different cells than Williams and Parker.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in this federal forum on February 17, 2015 alleging federal causes of action for: false arrest in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; excessive force in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; denial of medical care in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; failure to train or supervise; practice or custom of denying emergency medical treatment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and under state law the claims of assault; battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence; negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress (bystander recovery); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (bystander recovery). [Docket no. 1].
The plaintiffs say this court possesses "federal question" subject matter jurisdiction under the authority of Title 28 U.S.C. § 13314. The defendants have not challenged subject matter federal question jurisdiction; nevertheless, this court has an independent obligation to verify it possesses appropriate subject matter jurisdiction.5
Since the plaintiffs have asserted various causes of action invoking the authority of Title 42 U.S.C. § 19836, a federal enactment, this court finds that it indeed possesses federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims under the authority of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Moor v. Alameda Cty., 411 U.S. 693, 712, 93 S. Ct. 1785, 1797, 36 L. Ed. 2d 596 (1973) () (Citing Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961).
This court also finds that it possesses supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under the authority of Title 28 U.S.C. § 13677. Supplemental jurisdiction adorns a lawsuit where the parties have asserted causes of action over which this court possesses subject matter "federal question" jurisdiction simultaneously with purely state law causes of action, over which this court would not normally possess subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this federal forum on February 17, 2015. Plaintiffs, before serving any defendants, filed their First and Second Amended Complaints on the same date, June 11, 2015. [Docket nos. 2 and 3]. This court is unaware why plaintiffs filed two amended complaints on the same date; however, the Second Amended Complaint named Sharon Vancleve as an additional defendant while the First Amended Complaint did not.
The defendants filed their collective answer on August 17, 2015. [Docket no. 18].
After the plaintiffs and defendants had conducted significant discovery, a group of two (2) intervenor plaintiffs filed their Motion to Intervene on May 23, 2016. [Docket no. 77]. That motion listed Keiara Wiley as the Administratrix of the Estate of Williams and as the natural mother and guardian of Za'Riya Williams, Williams' natural daughter. United States Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson granted the Motion to Intervene on June 20, 2016.
The plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on November 15, 2016, identifying additional defendants, namely: Kenyon Banks, Tracey Langston, and Artis Harris. [Docket no. 93]. The plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is the currently operative complaint.
The defendants filed, on January 27, 2017, their Motion for Summary Judgment, [Docket no. 98] along with their memorandum brief in support of their motion. [Docket no. 99]. The plaintiffs filed their response in opposition [Docket no. 106] and their supporting memorandum brief [Docket no. 107] on March 6, 2017. The defendants replied on March 22, 2017, by filing their reply [Docket no. 110] and memorandum brief [Docket no. 111].
This court subsequently held multiple motion hearings whereat the parties presented oral arguments: June 2, 2017; July 21, 2017; February 23, 2018; December 18, 2018; February 5, 2019; and April 23, 2019. The court inquired as to various issues of fact and law and required the parties to present additional authority and evidence.
This court also held settlement conferences on at least two (2) separate occasions, during which time the parties were unsuccessful in their settlement negotiations.
On May 18, 2014, Williams and Lavina, then involved in a romantic relationship, were co-habitating a residence at 221 North Ward Street, Yazoo City, Mississippi. During the course of the evening, Williams imbibed an unknown amount of an alcoholic beverage8, believed to be beer. At some point, Lavina aired her suspicion that Williams had been engaging in sexual relations with a female co-worker of his. This accusation precipitated a verbal argument between the two, which soon degenerated into acts of violence. Williams and Lavina struck each other with a hand or fist. Lavina then tried to run away. Lavina claims that Williams had a history of striking her, as, she claims, he had done so before at least five (5) times.
Lavina's cousin, Brittany Smith (hereinafter referred to as "Brittany"), was also present at the house at the time and she joined in the dispute, seeking, she says, to prevent Williams fromstriking Lavina again. During the course of her intervention, Brittany called the Yazoo City Police Department (hereinafter referred to as "YCPD") to report the domestic dispute. After talking with the YCPD, Brittany then called Lavina's mother, brother, and step-uncle. After Williams and Lavina ceased their altercation, each went to different locations within the house. Williams thereafter allegedly telephoned his mother, Donnie Williams (hereinafter referred to as "Donnie").
Roughly five (5) to ten (10) minutes later, Lavina's mother, brother, and step-uncle arrived at the house in response to Brittany's telephone call. Lavina's mother entered the home and...
To continue reading
Request your trial