United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
matter is before the Court on the Defendants motion to strike
 portions of Plaintiff Montrell Greene's complaint.
a former superintendent of the Greenwood Public School
District ("GPSD"), alleges that Defendants
impermissibly fired him in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and state law. Green filed
a complaint asserting the following causes of action against
the Defendants: a § 1983 claim for deprivation of
property interest in his employment contract; a § 1983
claim for deprivation of liberty interest; a § 1985
civil conspiracy claim; and numerous state law claims.
filed a motion to dismiss. This Court found that Greene had
failed to state a claim for any of his federal causes of
actions and therefore dismissed them. See February
8, 2017 Order, Mem. Op. [20, 21]. The Court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims
and therefore dismissed those claims without prejudice.
appealed. On appeal, Greene challenged only this Court's
dismissal of his of property interest due process claim; the
Fifth Circuit deemed any other grounds for appeal abandoned.
See Greene v. Greenwood Pub. Sch. Dist., 890 F.3d
240, 242 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2018). The Fifth Circuit reversed
this Court on the property interest due process claim, and
affirmed this Court on all other claims. Id. at 244.
remand, Defendants filed this present motion to strike all of
the causes of actions in Greene's complaint other than
the property interest based due process claim. It is unclear
under what theory the Defendants ask the Court to strike
(rather than dismiss) portions of the complaint.
"Technically, motions to strike are not proper methods
of disposing of part or all of a complaint." Wray v.
Edward Blank Assocs., Inc., 924 F.Supp. 498, 501
(S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1380 (2d
ed.1990)). Nonetheless, "courts may treat motions to
strike as motions to dismiss". Id. Greene's
response indicates a dispute between the parties about what
causes of actions have been revived by the Fifth
Circuit's decision. Thus, the Court will explain the
current status of Greene's claims.
Court's prior order, broadly, did two things: it
dismissed all of Greene's federal claims against
Defendants because the complaint did not state a claim for
relief under federal law; and it dismissed the state law
claims without prejudice due to the Court's denial to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.
Fifth Circuit, however, ordered that: "The district
court's judgment is REVERSED with respect to Greene's
property-based procedural due process claim and AFFIRMED with
respect to his other claims." Greene, 890 F.3d
at 244. The accompanying judgment stated: "It is ordered
and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is
reversed, affirmed and the cause is remanded to the District
Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion
of this Court." USCA Judgement .
mandate rule requires a district court on remand to effect
our mandate and to do nothing else."Ge«.
Universal Sys., Inc. v. HAL, Inc., 500 F.3d 444, 453
(5th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Castillo,
179 F.3d 321, 329 (5th Cir. 1999), rev'don other
grounds, 530 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 2090, 147 L.Ed.2d 94
(2000). "Because the mandate rule is a corollary of the
law of the case doctrine, it 'compels compliance on
remand with the dictates of a superior court and forecloses
relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the
appellate court.'" Id. (quoting
Castillo, 179 F.3d at 329).
of the mandate rule requires this court to vacate its
previous order and opinion with respect to the property-based
due process claim (Count I). But application of the mandate
rule also forecloses revival of Greene's other federal
claims because the dismissal of those claims has been
affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.
respect to the pendant state law claims, the Court is of the
opinion that those claims currently stand dismissed as well.
The Court's prior order dismissed the state law claims
without prejudice. The Fifth Circuit's opinion affirmed
this Court's dismissal of all claims other than property
based due process claim, and thus implicitly (if not
explicitly) affirmed the Court's dismissal of the state
law claims without prejudice. No. part of the Fifth
Circuit's mandate requires this Court reinstate the state
law claims, Greene has not asked this Court to vacate its
prior order dismissing those claims, and Greene has not filed
any amended complaint reasserting those claims. Accordingly,
this Court's prior order still stands with respect to
dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.
motion seeks to dismiss all claims other than Greene's
property interest based due process claim. Because all of
those claims have already been dismissed, either with or