United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
LARRY E. WHITFIELD, JR. PLAINTIFF
MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF NARCOTICS; OFFICER D. RICE, Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics; AND OFFICER JUAN CHAPA, Hinds County Sheriff’s Department DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT OFFICER JUAN
CHAPA’S MOTION  FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS;
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LARRY E. WHITFIELD, JR.’S CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANT OFFICER JAUN CHAPA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING PLAINTIFF LARRY
E. WHITFIELD, JR.’S MOTIONS      TO
AMEND; GRANTING DEFENDANT OFFICER D. RICE’S MOTION 
TO STRIKE DOCUMENT ; AND STRIKING DOCUMENT 
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT are Defendant Juan Chapa’s Motion  for
Judgment on the Pleadings; Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield,
Jr.’s Motions      to Amend; and
Defendant Officer D. Rice’s Motion  to Strike
Document . This suit arises out of a traffic stop
conducted by Defendants, Officer D. Rice and Officer Juan
Chapa, following which Plaintiff was charged with possession
of drug paraphernalia. Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield, Jr.
alleges that during this traffic stop Defendant Juan Chapa
pulled a firearm and held it close to his face while
repeatedly shouting that he would shoot him, and that when he
refused to allow Defendants to conduct a cavity search,
Defendant Officer D. Rice attacked him, placed him in a
chokehold causing him to lose consciousness, and stepped on
the back of his neck.
due consideration of the record, Defendant’s Motion,
and relevant legal authority, the Court is of the opinion
that Defendant Officer Juan Chapa’s Motion  should
be granted and that Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield Jr.’s
claims against Defendant Officer Juan D. Chapa in his
individual and official capacities should be dismissed. The
Court further finds that Plaintiff Whitfield’s Motions
     to Amend should be denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff will, however, be allowed to
refile a motion to amend and submit a single proposed amended
complaint, stating all of his claims in one pleading, within
thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. Finally,
the Court finds that Defendant Officer D. Rice’s Motion
 to Strike Document  should be granted in light of
the Court’s Order permitting Plaintiff an opportunity
to amend his pleadings. Document  will be stricken.
December 7, 2017, Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield, Jr.
(“Whitfield” or “Plaintiff”) filed a
pro se Complaint  in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, naming the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics
(“MBN”) as the sole Defendant. Compl.  at 1.
Without any explanation or setting forth any facts, Whitfield
alleged that he was deprived of his right to a trial, endured
torture and abuse, and was unjustly imprisoned, including
being placed in solitary confinement. Id. at 2. The
Complaint sought monetary damages for pain and suffering and
lost wages. Id.
February 7, 2018, Whitfield filed an Attachment to the
Complaint, purporting to add further factual allegations in
support of his claims. Attach.  to Compl. Whitfield
claimed that he was pulled over by the MBN while driving in
Jackson, Mississippi, on June 28, 2017, and was arrested,
placed in custody “of a Sheriff Law Officer,” and
transported to the Hinds County Detention Center.
Id. Whitfield subsequently sought permission to
proceed in forma pauperis, at which point the Magistrate
Judge required him to answer a Questionnaire. On March 29,
2018, Whitfield answered the Magistrate Judge’s
Questionnaire and clarified his claims. Pl.’s Resp.
Order  dated April 27, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
construed the arguments, assertions, and legal bases
presented in Whitfield’s Response  to the
Questionnaire as an amendment to his Complaint, Order  at
1, and ordered that MBN Officer D. Rice (“Rice”)
and MBN Officer Unknown be added as Defendants, Order  at
1-2. On May 15, 2018, the MBN responded to the
Magistrate’s Order  indicating that it was unable
to execute a waiver for MBN Officer Unknown because he was
not employed by the MBN; however, it identified the Officer
Unknown as “Juan Chapa, Hinds County Sherriff’s
Department.” Resp.  to Order . The Court then
added Officer Juan Chapa as a Defendant.
to Whitfield’s Questionnaire , Officer Rice pulled
him over after he swerved to miss a pothole. Plaintiff then
consented to a search of his vehicle, during which Officer
Rice discovered drug paraphernalia. Pl.’s Resp. to
Questionnaire  at 2. Although Plaintiff was not under
arrest, Officer Rice allegedly gave Officer Chapa permission
to perform a cavity search, but Whitfield refused the
Officers’ request for consent to search him.
Id. at 3. Officer Rice then allegedly
“attacked him” and put “his hands around
his throat.” Id. After losing and then
regaining consciousness, Whitfield alleges that Officer Chapa
placed a firearm to his head and repeatedly threatened to
shoot him. Id. Whitfield was placed under arrest,
and while he was lying on his stomach, Officer Rice
“stepped on the back of [Whitfield’s] neck
applying pressure.” Id. Whitfield was booked
and charged with possession of drug paraphernalia.
Court previously granted the MBN’s Motion  to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, in the
Alternative, Failure to State a Claim, and dismissed
Whitfield’s claims against the MBN for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Order . Officer Chapa has
now filed a Motion  for Judgment on the Pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Officer
Chapa argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity as to
Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against him, and
that Whitfield has failed to state a claim against him in his
official capacity. Motion ; Pl’s Mem. in Support
has filed many documents which all appear in some fashion to
attempt to add claims to the Complaint . First, Whitfield
filed Document  to amend his Complaint “as a matter
of right,” to add a claim of punitive damages.
Subsequently, Whitfield filed numerous other Motions 
  . Additionally, Whitfield filed Document 
entitled “Pleadings,” which the Clerk filed as a
Rebuttal  to Officer Chapa’s Motion  for
Judgment on the Pleadings. In response to Document ,
Officer Rice filed a Motion  to Strike Document ,
arguing that it should be stricken because Whitfield failed
to seek leave of Court to amend his Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Motions      to
Amend should be denied without prejudice.
Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows a party to amend its
pleading once as a matter of course within either twenty-one
days after serving the pleading or within twenty-one days
after service of a responsive pleading or motion. Fed. R.Civ.
P. 15(a)(1). In any other instance, a party may amend its
pleading “only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). Courts, however, freely give leave to amend a
complaint “when justice so requires.”
Id. In exercising its discretion to grant or deny
leave to amend, a court may consider whether the party
seeking leave is doing so after undue delay, in bad faith, or
for a dilatory motive. See Jamieson By and Through
Jamieson v. Shaw, 772 F.2d 1205, 1208 (5th Cir. 1985).
“It is within the district court’s discretion to
deny a motion to amend if it is futile.” Stripling
v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 872-73 (5th Cir.
2000). Futility means “that the amended complaint would
fail to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.” Id. To determine futility, the court
“appl[ies] the same standard of legal sufficiency as
applies under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id.
filed his Complaint  on December 7, 2017. Two months
later, on February 7, 2018, he submitted Document ,
entitled “Attachment.” Despite that
Document’s title, it purports to elaborate on the
factual allegations in the Complaint  and was filed a full
two months afterwards. Because Defendants had not yet been
served, the Court is of the opinion that this
“Attachment ” constituted an amendment to the
Complaint  as a matter of course. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
may amend its pleading only “once as a matter of
course.” Id. Nevertheless, on May 24, 2018,
Whitfield filed another Document  seeking to amend
“as a matter of right.” Although Whitfield filed
this document within twenty-one days after service of process
upon Officers Rice and Chapa, Whitfield was not entitled to
amend his Complaint  a second time as a matter of course.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Barksdale v. King,
699 F.2d 744, 747 (5th Cir. 1983) (“[W]here some but
not all defendants have answered, plaintiff may amend as of
course claims asserted solely against the non-answering
defendants.”). As such, the Clerk properly docketed
this Document as a Motion  to Amend.
addition to this Motion  to Amend, Whitfield has filed
numerous other Documents     purporting to
assert new facts or causes of action, or seeking leave of
Court to amend. Some documents are styled as Motions to Amend
or specifically request an amendment. See, e.g.,
Mot. . Others are styled as new pleadings and appear to
be submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1) as a matter of course and without first seeking
leave of Court. See, e.g., . The majority of
these documents plead no new facts but list only criminal
statutes, the Restatement of Torts, or the numbers of certain
Constitutional Amendments. See  [51-1].
Court is cognizant that leave to amend should be freely given
“when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). In this instance, given the sheer number of
documents submitted by Whitfield and for the purpose of
clarity of the record, the Court will deny these Motions
without prejudice, but will permit Whitfield thirty (30) days
from the date of this Order in which to file a motion to
amend his Complaint, and attach a single proposed amended
complaint stating all of his claims in one pleading.
See L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(2) (“If leave of court
is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, a proposed amended
pleading must be an exhibit to a motion for leave to file the
pleading.”). Plaintiff is cautioned that he
must do more than provide the Court with a list of causes of
action, and that ...