# Morton v. City of Corinth, Mississippi

> District Court, N.D. Mississippi · July 17, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10245151

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Mississippi
- **Decided:** July 17, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10245151

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
CLOVIS DANIEL MORTON PLAINTIFF
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:22-cv-00065-GHD-DAS
THE CITY OF CORINTH,
MISSISSIPPI, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [40]. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff
asserts a myriad of federal and state law claims against nine Defendants, eight of whom are
individuals, related to the Plaintiff's arrest on November 2, 2020. Upon due consideration, the
Court finds that the Defendants’ motion should be denied as moot and that the Plaintiff shall be
required to file an Amended Complaint.
I Factual and Procedural Background
On November 2, 2020, the Plaintiff visited the premises of the Corinth Police Department
in order to retrieve a copy of a collision report for a motor vehicle collision involving his wife
[Complaint, Doc. 1, at p. 4]. Upon obtaining the report and attempting to exit the Police
Department’s parking lot, the Plaintiff noticed that a vehicle was stopped in the right-hand side
lane of the entrance/exit to the Police Department [/d., at p. 5]. The vehicle, driven by Defendant
Detective Ram Mares, had stopped so that Detective Mares could speak with someone entering
the Police Department [/d.] The Plaintiff blew his horn at the vehicle, which ultimately led to the
Plaintiff's arrest by Detective Mares and Defendant Officer Sean Strickland and to charges against
the Plaintiff for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct [/d., at p. 7, Doc. 1-1]. The charges were

ultimately dismissed by the Municipal Court of the City of Corinth at the conclusion of a trial [/d.,
at p. 8, Doc. 1-2]. This litigation followed.
As best the Court can determine from the Complaint, the Plaintiff brings this action against
nine remaining Defendants, asserting state law claims against three of the remaining defendants
for assault and battery, false arrest, gross negligence, and negligence per se; federal claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all remaining defendants for violation of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and a claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against all remaining Defendants. The Defendants have now filed the
presently pending motion seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs claims.
IT. Standard of Review
After the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial - a party may move for
judgment on the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A Rule 12(c) motion is governed by the same
standards as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Brown v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 472 Fed. App’x. 302, 303
(Sth Cir. 2012) (citing St Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 440 n.8 (Sth Cir.
2000)). “A motion brought pursuant to [Rule] 12(c) is designed to dispose of cases where the
material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the
substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone
Props., Lid., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (Sth Cir. 1990) (citing SA Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1367, at 509-10 (1990)).
When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) motion, the Court is limited to the allegations
set forth in the complaint and any documents attached to the complaint. Walker v. Webco Indus.,
Ine., 562 F. App’x 215, 216-17 (Sth Cir. 2014) (citing Kennedy v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
NA, 369 F.3d 833, 839 (Sth Cir. 2004)). “[A plaintiffs] complaint therefore ‘must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Phillips v. City of Dallas, Tex., 781 F.3d 772, 775-76 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)). In the case sub judice, two relevant
documents were attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint. Those documents, but no others, have been
considered and are referenced by the Court in ruling on this motion.
A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content “allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Jgbal, 556 U.S. at
678, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167
L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). “[P]laintiffs must allege facts that support the elements of the cause of
action in order to make out a valid claim.” Webb v. Morella, 522 F. App’x 238, 241 (Sth Cir.
2013) (quoting City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 152-53 (Sth Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted)). “[C]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading
as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” /d. (quoting Fernandez—
Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (Sth Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). “Dismissal is appropriate when the plaintiff has not alleged ‘enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face’ and has failed to ‘raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.’”” Emesowum v. Houston Police Dep't, 561 F. App’x 372, 372 (Sth Cir. 2014)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955).
HI Analysis and Discussion
As noted above, the Plaintiff has asserted multiple claims against multiple and varying
Defendants under both state and federal law and in both individual and official capacities — for
false arrest, excessive force, First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, assault and
battery, gross negligence, negligence per se, violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments, and the ADA, among other claims — incorporating by reference the allegations of
the preceding counts (with the exception of Count One), grouping various Defendants together in
various counts, and including irrelevant allegations and legal conclusions. As a result, as the
Defendants note repeatedly, it is unclear precisely what claims the Plaintiff seeks to raise, against
which Defendants each claim is asserted and in what capacity, and what conduct the Plaintiff
imputes to each Defendant. Thus, the Defendants are reduced to stating their defenses against the
claims as “best as they can discern,” which is improper, particularly in a case such as this one
where qualified immunity has been raised as a defense by each of the eight individual defendants.
See, e.g., White v. City of Grenada, No. 4:20-CV-161-SA-JMV, 2021 WL 4449276 (N.D. Miss.
Sept. 28, 2021).
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the Plaintiff's Complaint and the parties’ briefs on
the instant motion, the Court finds that the confusing nature of the Plaintiff's Complaint,
essentially a “shotgun” complaint naming a myriad of Defendants and claims, is improper and puts
the Court, as well as the Defendants, in the difficult position of attempting to discern the Plaintiff's
intent. This is particularly true given that the individual Defendants have asserted the defense of
qualified immunity at an early stage of these proceedings, which requires the Court to inquire into
the reasonableness of each of the eight individual Defendants’ alleged conduct. Estate of Stacks
v. Prentiss Cnty., No. 1:12-CV-32-GHD-DAS, 2013 WL 1124395, at *7 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 18,
2013); Carpenter v. Miss. Valley State Univ., 807 F. Supp. 2d 570, 585 (N.D. Miss. 2011) (noting
that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly
established constitutional right”).

As a court within this District has previously explained with regard to “shotgun”
complaints such as the Plaintiff's:
Shotgun pleadings, which are prohibited by the Federal Rules, are characterized
as complaints containing several counts, each one incorporating by reference
the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the
counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal
conclusions.
White, 2021 WL 4449276, at *5; Sahlein v. Red Oak Capital, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-67-DMB-JMV,
2014 WL 3046477, at *3 (N.D. Miss. July 3, 2014). The Plaintiff's Complaint falls squarely within
this category.
“Shotgun complaints are problematic because they force a ‘trial court to sift out the
irrelevancies, a task that can be quite onerous.’ ” Michael v. Boutwell, No. 3:14-CV-116-DMB-
SAA, 2015 WL 728516, at *6 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 19, 2015) (quoting Sahlein, 2014 WL 3046477, at
*3). “District courts have a ‘supervisory obligation to sua sponte order repleading pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) when a shotgun complaint fails to link adequately a cause
of action to its factual predicates.’ ” Michael, 2015 WL 728516, at *6 (quoting Wagner v. First
Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1275 (11th Cir. 2006)).
Recognizing this obligation, the Court finds that the Plaintiff should be required to replead
his allegations and claims in an Amended Complaint. Sudduth v. Lowndes Cnty., Miss., No. 1:18-
CV-51-SA-DAS, 2019 WL 982861 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 28, 2019) (finding that proper remedy when
complaint and claims are drafted in manner that does not allow Court to properly adjudicate motion
to dismiss is more definite statement under Rule 12(e) or order directing plaintiff to amend
complaint); Michael, 2015 WL 2728516, at *6 (describing problems with complaints that force
court to sift through irrelevant factual pleadings and fail to adequately link factual allegations to
claims, and listing appropriate procedural solutions, including requiring plaintiff to replead). In

so doing, the Plaintiff should remain cognizant of the requirement to link his claims to their factual
predicates, to comply with Rule 8’s pleading requirements as to his allegations against each
Defendant, and to heed the prohibition on shotgun complaints. The Plaintiffis specifically advised
that failure to file an amended pleading as directed may result in the Court striking his original
Complaint [1] or dismissing his claims.
IV. Conclusion
In sum, for the reasons set forth above, the Court shall order the Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint within twenty-one days of today’s date. In addition, the Defendants’ present motion for
judgment on the pleadings shall be denied without prejudice as moot. The Defendants shall have
the opportunity to file any further motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings after the
Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
An order in accordagee with this opinion shall issue this day.
THIS, the ee 2023.
Ale. rel
le. a pando
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10245151. Public record. Not legal advice.