Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. King

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division

October 3, 2014

LA TIDTUS JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
RON KING, et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL T. PARKER, Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court following the Court's findings at the omnibus hearing in this case. Having considered Plaintiff's claims, the argument of Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants and the applicable law, the Court finds that (1) Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant Ron King should be dismissed; (2) Plaintiff's numerous allegations of retaliation should be dismissed; (3) Plaintiff's allegations concerning the loss of his property should be dismissed; (4) Plaintiff's allegations concerning Defendant's ordering him outside without winter clothes should be dismissed; (5) Plaintiff's failure to report allegations against Defendant Carter should be dismissed; (6) Defendant Management Training Corporation should be dismissed; and (7) Plaintiff's ore tenus motion to dismiss Frances Alexander, Laverne Taylor, Crystal Bitz, Ella Scott, O. Boyd, Jessica Jackson, Dernell Anderson, B. Jones, Unknown Matthews and Danesha Savage should be granted.

BACKGROUND

On June 6, 2013, Plaintiff La Tidtus Jones, proceedings pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution ("SMCI") in Leakesville, Mississippi. Jones's claims arose while he was an inmate at SMCI and Wilkinson County Correctional Facility ("WCCF"). In this action, Jones has named thirty defendants.[1] Jones's claims relate to Defendant's alleged use of excessive force, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, failure to protect him from prison officials and other inmates, confiscation of his property, and denial of access to the courts.

The parties appeared and participated in an omnibus hearing before the Court on September 30, 2014. Plaintiff La Tidtus Jones appeared pro se. Tommy Goodwin appeared on behalf of Defendants Ron King, Hubert Davis, Brenda Sims, Chiquita Brown, Laura Tilley, Latasha Clay, Gia McLoed, Officer A. Keys, Unknown Arrington, and Malcom T. McClendon. Bob Pederson appeared on behalf of Defendants Ruth Saucier, P. Wiley-Davis, L. Taylor, Crystal Bitz, and Jessica Jackson. Katie Snell appeared on behalf of Defendants Rosemary Gatlin, Raymond Byrd, Raymond Briggs, Lakichia Wilson, Monica Carter, Ella Scott, Frances Alexander, and Dernell Anderson.

ANALYSIS

Defendant Ron King

According to Jones, Defendant Ron King failed to adequate supervise his staff who allegedly stole and destroyed Jones's property, and that King was deliberately indifferent to Jones's medical needs. Specifically, Jones alleges that he told King about his medical problems and that King did nothing to help him.

There is no vicarious or respondeat superior liability of supervisors under section 1983. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-4 (5th Cir. 1987). Instead, the plaintiff must show that (1) the supervisor either failed to supervise the subordinate officials; (2) a causal link exists between the failure to train and the violation of the plaintiff's rights; and (3) the failure to supervise amounts to deliberate indifference. Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009) ( quoting Smith v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d 908, 911-12 (5th Cir. 1998)). In order to establish deliberate indifference in a Section 1983 action for failure to supervise, a plaintiff must demonstrate a pattern of violations and that the inadequacy of supervision is obvious and likely to result in a constitutional violation. Id. Supervisory liability can also exist if the supervisory official implements a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights. Thompkins, 828 F.2d at 304.

Jones has not alleged that Ron King was personally involved in the alleged incident that resulted in his stolen property, that there is any causal link between King's failure to train and any violation of Jones's rights, or that this failure amounted to deliberate indifference. He has also failed to allege that Ron King has implemented any policy that resulted in a deprivation of Jones's rights.

Retaliation Claims

Jones's alleges acts of retaliation against Defendants Sims, Brown, Keys and Shaw. Jones states that the Defendants destroyed his belongings, denied his Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP") grievances, and became angry at him due the fact that Jones was pursuing claims against them in other lawsuits or other ARPs. These vague allegations of retaliation fail to state a claim. The law is clear that retaliation claims require a level of specificity that Jones has failed to demonstrate. See Garcia v. Gonzales, 478 Fed.App'x 928, 929 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding that state prisoner failed to state a retaliation claims when he produced no evidence of retaliatory motivation, failed to show timeline of events from which retaliation might realistically be inferred, and his claim was based only on conclusory allegation) (per curium); Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2008) ("To state a claim for retaliation under § 983, a prisoner must allege (1) a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant's intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory act, and (4) causation.").

Loss of Property

Jones alleges that Defendants Sims, Brown, Davis, Keys, McClinton, Arrington, and Shaw either took or destroyed approximately $100 worth of commissary and personal items. It is wellestablished that neither negligent nor intentional deprivations of property violate due process where there is an adequate state tort remedy available. Jackson, 392 Fed.App'x at 318. Mississippi provides post-deprivation remedies for negligent conversions of property. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 11-38-1 et seq. (claim and delivery); Miss. Code Ann. § 11-37-101 et seq. (replevin). It is plaintiff's burden to establish that these post-deprivation remedies are not adequate. Myers, 97 F.3d at 94-95 (citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to allege, must less provide any evidence, that these remedies are not adequate. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has held that "Mississippi's post-deprivation remedies for civil [ in forma paueris ] litigants satisfy ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.