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
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LARRY
WHITFIELD'S MOTION  FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; MOTIONS 
   FOR JOINDER; AND MOTION  FOR SUMMARY
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT are Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield, Jr.'s Motion
 for Leave to Amend; Motion  for Summary Judgment;
and Motions     for Joinder. This suit arises
out of a traffic stop conducted by Defendant Officer D. Rice,
following which Plaintiff was charged with possession of drug
paraphernalia. Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield, Jr. alleges that
during this traffic stop 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, Plaintiff's Motions, and
relevant legal authority, the Court is of the opinion that
Plaintiff Whitfield's Motion  for Leave to Amend and
Motions     for Joinder should be denied.
Further, Plaintiff's Motion  for Summary Judgment
should be denied without prejudice.
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 of service for MBN Officer Unknown because
he was not employed by the MBN; however, it identified the
Officer Unknown as “Juan Chapa, Hinds County
Sheriff'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
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. 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.
has filed many documents which all appear in some fashion to
be an attempt to add claims to the Complaint . First,
Plaintiff filed Document  to amend his Complaint
“as a matter of right, ” to add a claim for
punitive damages. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed numerous
other Motions    . Additionally, Plaintiff
filed Document  entitled “Pleadings, ” which
the Clerk filed as a Rebuttal  to Officer Chapa's
Motion  for Judgment on the Pleadings. This Court denied
these Motions      to Amend without
prejudice, permitting Plaintiff thirty days “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.” Order .
the entry of that Order, Plaintiff has again filed several
documents which appear to be efforts to add claims to this
Complaint. Plaintiff filed a Motion  for Leave to Amend,
to which Defendant Officer D. Rice has filed an Opposition
. In his Reply  to Defendant's Opposition,
Plaintiff attempted to add claims and facts to his Complaint.
Plaintiff has tried to further amend his Complaint via his
Motions     for Joinder and has filed a
Motion  for Summary Judgment, which Defendant has Opposed
Plaintiff's Motion  for Leave to Amend should be
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 in bad faith, after undue delay, or
for a dilatory motive. See Jamieson By and Through
Jamieson v. Shaw, 772 F.2d 1205, 1208 (5th Cir. 1985).
In addition, “[i]t 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).”
24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion  to Amend as a matter
of right. Plaintiff then filed numerous other Documents 
   purporting to assert new facts or causes of
action or seeking leave of Court to amend. The Court
previously denied Plaintiff's motions without prejudice,
but permitted him “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 hisclaims in one
pleading.” Order  at 7 (emphasis added);