United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
CHAKAKHAN R. DAVIS PLAINTIFF
HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
P. JORDAN III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pro se civil-rights action is before the Court on the
parties' cross-motions. Defendant Hinds County seeks
partial dismissal in its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
. Plaintiff Chakakhan R. Davis responds to that motion
with a Motion for a Continuance . She also seeks
reconsideration of an order denying an earlier motion for
reconsideration . For the reasons that follow,
Davis's motions [77, 95] are denied. Hinds County's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings  is granted.
case arises from Plaintiff Chakakhan R. Davis's arrest
and subsequent detention at the Hinds County Detention
Center. Davis's factual allegations are reflected in her
Amended Complaint  and were summarized in at least two
orders. See Nov. 29, 2017 Order ; May 23, 2017
Order . The Court writes today for the record and the
parties, so it will not repeat the factual summaries.
said, the procedural history affects the pending motions and
is somewhat convoluted. The relevant history begins with the
Court's May 23, 2017 Order  granting partial
dismissal under Rule 12(c). That Order addressed motions
filed by Hinds County and two individual defendants. In broad
terms, the Order dismissed the state and federal claims
against the individual defendants in their individual
capacities without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(5)
Davis failed to properly serve those defendants. As to Hinds
County, the Court dismissed the state-law claims related to
the events at the detention center with prejudice. As to the
arrest-related state-law claims against the County, the Court
dismissed the false-arrest claim without prejudice to
potential amendment; dismissed the malicious-prosecution
claim with prejudice; and denied the motion to dismiss as to
excessive force, false imprisonment, and abuse of process.
the Court largely granted Defendants' motions, it also
ruled that Davis could file a motion to amend her claims in
three ways: (1) she could attempt to amend the pleading to
state claims against all three defendants under the First
Amendment; (2) she could attempt to plead a state-law
false-arrest claim against the County; and (3) she could
attempt to state a claim against Defendant Tyrone Lewis
related to hiring/supervision issues.
filed her motion for leave to amend  on June 2, 2017, and
on November 29, 2017, the Court granted her motion, in part,
allowing her to assert claims against Defendant Lewis
(individually) for failure to train or supervise. Nov. 29,
2017 Order  at 9. In the end, the following claims
survived: (1) failure to train/supervise against Lewis; (2)
the federal claims against Hinds County; and (3) the
state-law claims against the County for excessive force,
false imprisonment, and abuse of process. See Id.
Aggrieved by that ruling, Davis filed her first motion for
reconsideration  on December 13, 2017. The Court denied
the motion on February 23, 2018. See Feb. 23, 2018
that leads to the motions now up for consideration. First,
Davis seeks reconsideration of the February 23, 2018 Order
denying reconsideration of her motion seeking leave to amend.
See Pl.'s Mot. . Second, Hinds County seeks
partial dismissal under Rule 12(c) of
Plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for
false arrest, illegal search, excessive force, and false
imprisonment, along with Davis's Eighth Amendment claim
for cruel and unusual punishment. See Def.'s
Mot.  at 10. Hinds County also seeks dismissal of the
state-law claim for false imprisonment related to the events
at the detention center. Def.'s Mot.  at 9. Finally,
Davis asks the Court to convert Defendants' motion under
Rule 12(d) and then allow discovery under Rule 56(d).
See Pl.'s Mot. . Nevertheless, her motion
and her subsequent Reply  address the substance of the
County's Rule 12(c) motion and will be construed as a
Motion for Continuance 
with the motion for continuance, Davis invokes Rule 12(d),
which states that “if, on a motion under . . . Rule
12(c), maters outside the pleadings are presented to and not
excluded by the Court, the motion must be treated as one for
summary judgment under Rule 56.” Whether to convert a
motion is a matter left to the district court's
“complete discretion.” Isquith ex rel.
Isquith v. Middle S. Utils., Inc., 847 F.2d 186, 194 n.3
(5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
says the Court should exercise that discretion because Hinds
County alternatively sought summary judgment. Pl.'s Mot.
 at 1. But Hinds County did no such thing. See
generally Def.'s Mot. ; Def.'s Mem. .
The County premised its motion on Davis's Amended
Complaint and the exhibits thereto, without looking beyond
the pleadings. The Court will do the same.
a request for discovery is generally not an appropriate
response to a Rule 12[(c)] motion.” Minor v.
Jackson Mun. Airport Auth., No. 3:15-CV-936-DPJ-FKB,
2016 WL 4869696, at *5 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 13, 2016) (citing
Sw. Bell Tel., LP v. City of Hous., 529 F.3d 257,
263 (5th Cir. 2008) (rejecting plea for discovery and holding
that “when deciding, under Rule 12(b)(6), whether to
dismiss . . . the court considers, of course, only ...