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.

Mills v. Patten

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

July 16, 2019

ANTHONY DUANE MILLS PLAINTIFF
v.
TRAVIS PATTEN, et al . DEFENDANTS

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge.

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Patten's Motion [76] for Summary Judgment and Defendant Mackel's Motion [79] for Summary Judgment. Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and the applicable law, the undersigned recommends that the Motions [76] and [79] be granted.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Anthony Duane Mills, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, was incarcerated at the Adams County Jail but has since been released and lives in Natchez, Mississippi. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 25, 2017 alleging a myriad of constitutional violations against several defendants stemming from several incidents that occurred over March 2-3, 2016 at Plaintiff's home in Natchez, Mississippi. A Spears[1] hearing was held in this matter on July 26, 2018 and Plaintiff's claims were clarified and screened. Order [63].

         The pending motions for summary judgment relate to Defendants Walter Mackel and Travis Patten.[2] Plaintiff alleges that on the night of March 2, 2016 he was sleeping on his sofa because he and his wife were having marital problems. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Mackel, at the time a deputy with the Adams County Sherriff's Department, entered Plaintiff's home, put a gun to his head, raped him, and then inserted an object into his anus. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Mackel threatened Plaintiff's children and told Plaintiff not to say anything. When the alleged sexual assault was over, Defendant Mackel left the house.

         Despite this threat, Plaintiff attempted to tell his wife about the sexual assault after it happened, but she would not listen to him. Plaintiff then went into the bathroom and began to cry and cut himself with a straight razor. Plaintiff sues Defendant Mackel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his constitutional rights under color of state law.

         Plaintiff also claims that the next morning, March 3, 2016, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., he emerged from the bathroom and his wife noticed his self-inflicted wounds. Plaintiff's wife then called the police. Defendant Patten responded and once Defendant Patten arrived, Plaintiff was again in the bathroom cutting himself. Defendant Patten broke down the door to the bathroom and tased Plaintiff. After Plaintiff was subdued, he was taken to the hospital for treatment. Plaintiff sues Defendant Patten for an alleged use of excessive force.

         On November 1, 2018, Defendant Mackel filed a Motion [79] for Summary Judgment and Defendant Patten filed a Motion [76] for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has not responded and the time for doing so has long since passed.

         ANALYSIS

         Summary Judgment Standard

         “[S]ummary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (internal quotations omitted). The Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004). If the moving party meets its burden, the “nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).

         Summary judgment is proper “where a party fails to establish the existence of an element essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof.” Washington v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 839 F.2d 1121, 1122 (5th Cir. 1988). In the absence of proof, the Court does not “assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts.” Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (emphasis omitted). “It is improper for the district court to ‘resolve factual disputes by weighing conflicting evidence, … since it is the province of the jury to assess the probative value of the evidence.'” McDonald v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 2005 WL 2474701, at *3 (S.D.Miss. Apr. 29, 2005) (quoting Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 1980)).

         Defendant Patten's Motion for Summary Judgment [76]

         Plaintiff sues Defendant Patten for an alleged use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant Patten does not dispute that he tased Plaintiff while Plaintiff was harming himself with a straight razor. Rather, Defendant Pattern asserts that he is entitled to summary judgment because he is protected by the ...


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.