United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on the Motion  for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants Alex Hodge, Jones County, Jeff
Monk, and Joseph White along with the Motion  for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant Jason Myers. Having carefully
considered the parties' submissions and the applicable
law, the Court finds that the Motions  and  should be
granted in part and denied in part.
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is
a post-conviction inmate in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections. Plaintiff filed this civil-rights
lawsuit on August 29, 2017 and the Court held a
Spears hearing to clarify Plaintiff's
claims on July 2, 2018. Plaintiff testified at the hearing
that his claims stemmed from his arrest in Jones County,
Mississippi and his subsequent stay at the Jones County Adult
to Plaintiff, on December 14, 2016, Jones County officers
stopped his vehicle because they had an arrest warrant for
him. Plaintiff pulled his truck into a yard and then
attempted to flee on foot but was quickly stopped after
exiting his truck by either Jason Myers or Joseph
White who “tased” him. Plaintiff
claims that once he was hit with the taser he fell to the
ground and stopped resisting.
claims that Jason Myers then kicked and stomped him several
times in the back of the head and Jeff Monk kicked him in the
jaw. Plaintiff sues Jason Myers, Jeff Monk, and Joseph White
for their use of excessive force. He also claims that Sheriff
Alex Hodge and Jones County are responsible for the
officers' actions, and that they failed to properly train
and supervise the officers. As a result of this force,
Plaintiff claims that he now has a speech impediment, suffers
from seizures, and has serious headaches, all of which he did
not have before the incident.
disagree with Plaintiff's representation of the facts.
They assert that the force used was reasonable and necessary
under the circumstances because Plaintiff was fleeing and
continued to resist arrest. Further, Defendant Monk submits
that he was not present when Plaintiff was arrested but
arrived at the scene later and never used any force against
further claims that after the officers used excessive force
against him, he was taken to the Jones County Adult Detention
Center. Once he arrived at the jail, medical personnel there
told the officers to take him to the local medical clinic. At
this clinic, his head was x-rayed and he was told that his
jaw was not broken.
was returned to Jones County Adult Detention Center and a few
days later he suffered his first seizure. Plaintiff was sent
to the doctor where he received a CAT scan, but he did not
receive an MRI as recommended by the doctor because the
officer transporting him did not have the time to wait.
Plaintiff testified that while housed at the jail for
approximately two weeks he was visited by healthcare provider
Donnie Scoggin on multiple occasions, but that Defendant
Hodge and Defendant Jones County denied him medical care by
not providing an MRI after his seizure.
October 17, 2018, Defendants Hodge, Jones County, Monk, and
White moved for Summary Judgment. Mot. . Plaintiff
responded on April 19, 2019, and Defendants replied on April
26, 2019. See , . On May 23, 2019, Defendant
Myers moved for Summary Judgment. Mot. . Plaintiff has not
responded to Defendant Myers motion and the time for doing so
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).
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)).