United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRAMLETTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on defendants Sheriff Timothy
Wroten and Amite County (“the County
defendants”)'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
as to State Law Claims or, in the alternative, to strike jury
and demand for punitive damages (docket entry 7), and on the
County defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
as to Federal Claims (docket entry 9). The plaintiff failed
to file responsive briefs addressing the motions within the
time required by the Local Rules of this Court. On January
27, 2017, the Court therefore ordered the plaintiff to show
cause for her failure to file responsive pleadings, and to
show cause why judgment should not be entered against her.
(Docket entry 11). The plaintiff failed to respond. On April
17, 2017, the Court entered another show cause order (Docket
entry 12) warning the plaintiff that her failure to respond
could result in entry of judgment on the pleadings as well as
dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. Again, the
plaintiff failed to respond. In fact, the plaintiff has not
filed any pleadings beyond her Complaint and proofs of
service of process.
County defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(c) as they have
answered the Complaint. “The standard for deciding a
Rule 12(c) motion is the same as with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss.” Guidry v. Am. Public Life Ins.
Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007)(citing
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191,
205 (5th Cir. 2007)).
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(internal quotation
omitted). The plaintiff must plead sufficient facts so that
the Court may reasonably infer the defendant's liability
for the alleged misconduct. Id. “[A] plaintiff
armed with nothing more than conclusions cannot unlock the
doors of discovery.” Doe v. Robertson, 751
F.3d 383, 393 (5thCir. 2014)(internal quotations
Complaint, the plaintiff claims that the County defendants
(1) were grossly negligent; (2) assaulted and battered her;
and (3) intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her.
Complaint, ¶¶ V-VII. However, the person the
plaintiff alleges assaulted her (defendant Brianna Rogers
(“Rogers”)) was not an Amite County employee but,
rather, a fellow inmate.
officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect
inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates.
Farmer v, Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994); see
also Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400-01
(5th Cir. 1995). However, not every injury
“by one prisoner at the hands of another ... translates
into constitutional liability for prison officials
responsible for the victim's safety.”
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. To establish a
failure-to-protect claim, the plaintiff must show that she
was detained “under conditions posing a substantial
risk of serious harm and that [the defendants] were
deliberately indifferent to [her] need for protection.”
Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533
(5thCir. 1995). “In order to act with
deliberate indifference, ‘the [defendants] must both be
aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn
that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [they]
must also draw the inference.'” Id.
(quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).
plaintiff has failed to plead that the County defendants had
the requisite knowledge that a substantial risk of serious
harm existed prior to the incident at issue in her Complaint.
Even assuming that the allegations in the Complaint are true,
the plaintiff has failed to show how the County defendants
acted with deliberate indifference. Mere negligence in
failing to protect a prisoner does not form the basis of a
failure-to-protect claim. See Oliver v. Collins, 914
F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990).
previously noted, the plaintiff failed to respond to the
Court's show cause order and failed to show why judgment
should not be entered against her. On April 17, 2017, the
Court extended to the plaintiff one last opportunity to show
why Judgment on the Pleadings should not be entered against
her, but the plaintiff did not respond. It is clear to the
Court that the plaintiff has no interest in pursuing her
claims against the County defendants, and by her inaction has
conceded the County defendants' motions.
Court shall therefore grant the County defendants' Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings as to State Law Claims, and
shall grant the County defendants' Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings as to Federal Claims. The County
defendants' motion to strike is therefore moot.
the Court is dismissing all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction, it shall decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims
against defendant Rogers. See 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Sheriff Timothy Wroten
and Amite County's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
as to State Law Claims (docket entry 7) is GRANTED, and all
state law claims against Sheriff Timothy Wroten and Amite
County are dismissed with prejudice;
ORDERED that defendants Sheriff Timothy Wroten and Amite
County's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to
Federal Claims (docket entry 9) is GRANTED, and all federal
claims against Sheriff Timothy Wroten and Amite County are
dismissed with prejudice;
ORDERED that the County defendants' motion to strike is
ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims
against defendant Brianna Rogers, and said ...