Petition for Rehearing — Bruce Ellis, et al., Petitioners v. City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, et al.

No. 23-103

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BRUCE ELLIS and WILLIE ELLIS

Petitioners,

Vv.

CITY OF CLARKSDALE; CLARKSDALE PUBLIC WORKS;

AND CLARKSDALE PUBLIC UTILITIES,

Respondents

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Bruce Ellis and Willie Ellis Pro se,

P.O. Box 131

Sumner, MS 38957

(662) 902-4782

NOVEMBER 25,2023

RECEIVED

NOV 3.n 2093

OFFICE OF T,

SUPREME COURT ER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS. ...........ccccceseeeeeeee ees 1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .................:000005 nt

PETITION FOR REHEARING. .................005 1

REASONS FOR GRANTING REHEARING

PETITION AND CERT. PETITION .............

1. There is a well-recognized conflict among the

lower courts’ application of Rule 12(c) and

Rule 16(b). This Petition for Rehearing is

filed to determine the apparent federal

question conflict of the broader language of

F.R.C.P. Rule 12(c), which appears to

conflict with Rule 16 Scheduling Order in

that, “after the pleadings are closed but

within such time as not to delay the trial,

any party may move for judgment on the

DICADIICR,” secccsccasasscs senswecrcnxccxenssecsewens 4

2. This Petition for Rehearing presents a

federal question where the Court confronts a

Rule 56(c) “genuine issue as to any material

fact”_in connection with a motion for

summary judgment after the Court has

“Denied Certiorari. Should the Trial Court

decision be vacated? ........ccccesseeceseeeceeenes 6

ii.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Argo v. Woods, 399 F. App’x 1, 2-3 (5 Cir. 2010)

4

ARR ee eR eR EEE EEE ER EEE EEE HEHEHE HEHE EEE EEE EEE

Connally v. General Construction Co. 269 U.S.

385, 391 (1926) ..... cxcsssscasavepessencesieessascaswenans

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett-477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct.

2548 (1986). 00... cee cec eee ececeeeeneeeteceneceeeeeteneeens 9

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

509 U.S, 579 (1993),

Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963).............. 13

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) .....

Jones v. Coleman Co., Inc., 39 F. 3d 749, 753-64

(7th Cir. 1994) 20... cece ecccee nec eceeececsteeneceeeteesees 5

Kemp v. United States, 21-5726 (June 13, 2022)

igp Soo CS eee o PGR EEe Ae Fey SNe SEs Sess ecb esTAS ode eS SSeSeecSeS neaheee 17

Monell v. Department of Soc. Svces., 436 U.S.

658,690 (1978) ......ceccecceeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 10

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 482-

83 (1986); Waggy, 594 F. 3d at 713 ....... 2, 7,14

iii.

Pioneer Inc. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. L.P.,

507 U.S. 380, 395 (1998) ......cec cee cec eee eeeeeeeees 2

Porter v. U.S. 473 F. 2d 1329, 1336 n. 9 (5t» Cir.

19728) ccnsseonncinesnswasnnennaaccensnomemonarwnaneaieen'ene 9

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381, 127 S. Ct. 1769,

167 L.Ed. 2d 686 (2007); Carnaby v. City of

Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5% Cir. 2011). .....8

Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8 (1963)

(Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 791 (1981)

Smith v. Wade 461 U.S. 30, 103 S. Ct. 1625, 75 L.

ITales ... cemreereer «= aergerye «+ SRI - « » SERS « « « SSRI IgG)= «« oT

Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F. 2d 1489,

1443 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by

Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F. 3d

964 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). ...........2.ce eee eees 10,13

U.S. v. Texas Pipeline Company, 611 F. 2d 345,

BAT, (LOth Cir. 1979) ....c.ccecsccsccveveccsceccesccscees 17

U.S. v. CPS Chemical Company Inc., 779 F. Supp.

437, 442 (B.D. Ark. 1991) ...... cece ee eee cec eee neces 6

Vugo, Inc. v. City of New York, 931 F. 3d 42, 48 (2d

Cir. 2019) (citing Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564

U.S. 552, 571-572, 131 s. Ct. 2653, 180 L. Ed. 2d

544 (2011) ccsccsscverssacaccrcassavaaweeswsnnavccvssaawnces 17

lv.

Waggy v. Spokane County Washington, 594 F. 3d

707, 713 (9t Cir. 2010); Fairley v. Luman, 281, F.

3d 913, 918 (9t Cir.2002) (per curiam).2,7,10,13,14

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 4242 (1988) ............00. 4

Winchester Municipal Utilities, 944 F. 2d 301, 304

(6th Cir, 1991) ssscscasssss cavsnensaseenaeaesseses carmonesevis 4

STATUTES

42, U.S.C. Sec. 1983 oo. .ccccceeeeeeeesee eee seeeeneeeneeees 1

H.RAC. PB. Rile 12) amaccenecsemonanasnes semmacomennnec 1

F.R.C.P. 6O(b)(1). 0. ceeeccececeeceecee cee eee eee eeeeee teees 4

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(C), ........ccseseceeeeesseceees 12

F.R.C.P. 16(b) .........sce ees coe es stittealssaaieusindenseniansanss iv

F.R.C.P 60(b) sississspecasscsceuessaguanassabasseseees seas 4

F.R.C.P. 52(b) Plain Error Rule ..................0004-

F.R.C.P. Rulle 5.1 wo. ccc cecceeceseeeeeeeeeeeneeeeneneneeeees 6

F.R.C.P. 56(e)(2) and 56(€)(8......... eee eee ee eee eee

Act 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. sec. 1251, and 1251(a)

Cb SOQ. .ccccccsnsencoecenvee ces oc sWebisaalereseaia'epemians ass sicaiczy

Title 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251......... cece ccec sees eee eeeee

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Supreme Court Rule 44.1.0... cee ceeeeeeeeee ees iv

V.

City of Clarksdale Ordinance Chapter 11, Health

and Sanitation Sec. 14-25(b)(9) .......ceceeeseeees 12,14

“NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual ....... 5,9

Portions of the Uniform Plumbing Code Chapter 7

Sanitary Drainage Table 701.1 .............0c.02eee es Vv

1.

PETITION FOR REHEARING

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Factual and Procedural Background

1. Petitioners filed Complaint Doc. [1] for damages

on February 26, 2020, under Title 42 U.S.C. Sec.

1983 through an “Inverse Condemnation

Claim.” See 21-60885.3 complaint document

No. [1]. ROA.22.

2. In response to Respondents filing their Rule 56c

Motion for summary judgment on 07/13/2021,

Petitioners filed our Rule 12(c) motion for

judgment on the pleadings on 08/06/2021

Approximately (6) six months prior to the Trial

Court date due/set by the Court's Rule 16

scheduling order “Rebutting” and establishing:

(1). Municipal Policy Maker. (2). Municipal

Policy Violation of City of Clarksdale

“Ordinance” Chapter 11, Health and Sanitation

Sec. 14-25(b)(9); and 40 CFR 122.41 (1)(6)

requiring NPDES permit holders to report any

noncompliance with the permit that may

‘endanger health or the environment’ and

these violations of law establishes a causal

connection between the policy violation and the

Fifth Amendment Constitutional violation for

which Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. Sec. 1983. See docket entry No. [222],

[223], [233], [234]

2).

STRICKEN. SO ORDERED, this 27 day of

September 2021. ROA.971.

. A choice among alternatives by a municipal

official with final decision-making authority

may also serve as the basis of municipal

liability. See, Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,

475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986); Waggy, 594 F. 3d

at 713 (explaining that a policy has been defined

as a deliberate choice, made from among

various alternatives, to follow a course of

action). Also see Affidavit Document [187] of

City of Clarksdale Engineer, Arch Corley.

Clarksdale Public Utilities hired “Private

Contractor to make repairs under the delta

Cinema using slip joint technology to repair.

. On 11/12/2021 The Trial Court Judge

GRANTED Petitioners Rule 56(a) motion for

Summary Judgment in Defendants Favor. See,

ROA.1073-1086.

. On May 08, 2023 The Fifth Cir. Ct. of Appeals

AFFIRMED the District Court holding.

. On September 29, 2023 Respondents filed their

Oppositional Brief stating, “The Petitioners

more particularly alleged ... the respondents’

operation and repair of the municipal sanitary

sewer _and_ storm drainage system caused

damage to their property.” See page No. (1)

BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION.

3.

Factual and Procedural Background paragraph

No. (2).

7. Petitioners are now filing a Petition for

Rehearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

44 on the merits of the case alleging

Respondents among other things asserted in

paragraph (8) eight above a, “genuine issue

as to any material fact” in connection with

their motion for summary judgment

GRANTED by Trial Court Judge, Honorable

Debra Brown on November 12, 2021 and the

FIFTH Cir. Ct. of Appeals AFFIRMED Trial

Court Decision on May 8, 2023.

8. The “genuine issue as to any material fact”

referenced above in questions and alleged by

Respondents is supported by the Record and

now Requires the Court to Vacate the

District Court Decision.

REASONS WHY PETITION FOR

REHEARING AND PETITION FOR WRIT

OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED

A.

1. There is a well-recognized conflict among the

lower courts’ application of Rule 12(c) and

Rule 16(b). The broader language of

F.R.C.P. Rule 12(c), appears to conflict with

Rule 16 Scheduling Order in that, “after the

pleadings are closed but within such time as

not to delay the trial, any party may move

for judgment on the pleadings.” See, Argo v.

Woods 399 F. App’x 1 (5th Cir. 2010) holding

that the magistrate judge did not abuse his

discretion by permitting summary judgment

motion after deadline for good cause, despite

district court’s denial of motion as untimely

under Rule 16(b).

2. Respondents filed their Rule 56c Motion for

summary judgment on 07/13/2021 just (2)

two days prior to Rule 16 scheduling Order

deadline. Relying on F.R.C.P. 7.2(d)’s 35

days grace period to respond to a

“Dispositive Motion,” Petitioners filed our

Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the

pleadings on 08/06/2021 and Approximately

(6) six months prior to the Trial Court date

due/set by the Rule 16 scheduling order

“Refuting” and establishing: (1). Municipal

Policy Maker. (2). Municipal Policy

Violation of City of Clarksdale “Ordinance”

Chapter 11, Health and Sanitation Sec. 14-

25(b)(9); and Title 40 CFR 122.41 (1)(6)

5.

requiring NPDES permit holders to report

any noncompliance with the permit that

may ‘endanger health or __ the

environment’ and these violations of law

establishes a causal connection between the

policy violation and the Fifth Amendment

Constitutional violation for which Plaintiff's

seek relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

See docket entry No. [222], [223], [233], [234]

STRICKEN. SO ORDERED, this 27‘ day

of September 2021. ROA.971.

. See Jones v. Coleman Co., Inc., 39 F.3d 749,

753-64 (7th Cir. 1994) (holding that

magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion

by permitting summary judgment motion

after deadline for good cause, despite district

court’s prior denial of motion as untimely

under Rule 16(b)).

The broader language of Rulel2(c),

however, appears to conflict with Rule 16 in

that “after the pleadings are closed but

within such time as not to delay the trial,

any party may move for judgment on the

pleadings.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). We have

not__directly addressed this ‘apparent

conflict,’ but the court finds Riggins v.

Walter, 279 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 1995), to be

instructive regarding its resolution:

6.

5. These are precisely the type of factual issues

that need to be resolved in full briefing. For

these reasons, rehearing is appropriate.

See, (Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785,

791 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting)

(“summary disposition only appropriate in

cases where law is settled and stable, the

facts are not in dispute, and the decision

below is clearly in error”).

6. Rule 5.1 requires the court to notify the

appropriate Attorney General that an Act of

Congress has been called into question.

7. Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2403(a) requires the

Court to certify to the appropriate Attorney

General that an Act of Congress has been

called into question regarding F.R.C.P.

12(c); F.R.CP. 16(b).

8. The decision below directly conflicts with

Supreme Court precedents.

IL.

1. Petition for Rehearing is also filed to

determine the federal question conflict of

the broader language of F.R.C.P. 56(c)

7.

regarding what happens when a _ court

confronts a Rule 56(c) “genuine issue as to

any material fact” in connection with a

motion for summary judgment.

2. On September 29, 2023 Respondents

filed their Oppositional Brief stating,

“The Petitioners more _ particularly

alleged ... the respondents’ operation and

repair of the municipal sanitary sewer

and storm drainage system caused

damage to their property.” A choice

among alternatives by a municipal

official with final decision-making

authority may also serve as the basis of

municipal liability. See, Pembaur v. City

of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 482-83

(1986); Waggy, 594 F. 3d at 713

(explaining that a policy has been defined

as a deliberate choice, made from among

various alternatives, to follow a course of

action). Also see Affidavit Document

[187] of City of Clarksdale Engineer,

Arch Corley. Clarksdale Public Utilities

hired “Private Contractor to make

repairs under the delta Cinema using

slip joint technology to repair.

3. This statement made by Respondents is

reflected in question No. (9) of Petition

8.

for Writ of Certiorari asserting whether

another Appellate Court could reach a

different conclusion on the same issue

where Trial Court Judge mistaken

stated, Plaintiffs failed to rebut

defendant's claims regarding their

“surreply Dispositive Docs. [153] and

[187]” when a party fails to support an

assertion of fact or fails to properly

address another party’s assertion of fact

as required by Rule 56(c) or when an

attempted response fails to comply with

Rule 56(¢), a Motion for summary

judgment is improper?

. Traditionally the requirements for relief

under Sec. have articulated as: (1) a

violation of rights protected by the

Constitution or created by federal

statute, (2) proximately caused (3) by

conduct of a person (4) acting under color

of state law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947

F.2d 1418, 1420 (9% Cir, 1991).

Petitioners provided relevant

photographic evidence showing

Respondents through private contractors

making repairs to its public use utility

easement located under plaintiffs floor

that caused the flooding and the property

9

damages. See photo appendix No. (1- 6)

filed with this Petition for Rehearing.

See also Doc. [23]; ROA.92-94; [Doc.93-1]

ROA.344. Scott v. Harris, 550

U.S. 372, 381, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.

2d 686 (2007); Carnaby v. City of

Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5t» Cir. 2011)

(‘Although we review evidence in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving

party, we assign greater weight, even at

summary judgment stage, to the facts

evidenced from video recordings taken at

the scene.”). See Petitioners’ document

#: [ 93-1] CCTV video and photographic

evidence (App.1-App.6) that is associated

with the Rehearing Petition. Petitioner’s

Doc. #: 121-1 Filed: 03/16/2021 Pages: 1-

18, Case: # 4:20-cv-00032-DMB-JMV.

ROA.497. See, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett-

477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986).

. Throughout the course of this litigation,

the Ellises have submitted various

photographs, both with and without

explanation; repair estimates; an

“NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual

ROA.497-513 and portions of the

Uniform Plumbing Code which

10

established under section 701.1 “No

galvanized wrought-iron or galvanized

steel pipe shall be used underground and

shall be kept not less than (6) inches (152

mm) above ground. See ROA.601. See

also Appendix photographs (App.1-

App.2) showing galvanized steel piping

used underground and City of Clarksdale

Notice of Incident / Injury Report

ROA.162. Moreover, a policy of inaction

may be a municipal policy within the

meaning of Monell. See, Waggy v.

Spokane County Washington, 594 F. 3d

707, 713 (9% Cir. 2010); Fairley v.

Luman, 281, F. 3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2002)

(per curiam). See, Photo No. (App.1-2)

showing Raw Sewage and Strom Drain

water escaping Public Use Utility

Easement prior to repairs in fall 2017

establishing the causal connection

alleged in sec. III C. question 2

Complaint Doc. [1]. “Sections of pipe

running in and around personal property

were completely missing or

deteriorated.”

. Defendants used Galvanized steel pipe to

construct their public use _ utility

easement. See appendix color photos

Appx.(1-2) attached that support

11

Complaint Doc. [1] Section Ill. C.

question (1) through (3). Also See, Doc.

[23], 21-60885.92-93 [151-1] ROA.601. A

policy “promulgated, adopted, or ratified

by a local governmental entity’s

legislative body unquestionably satisfies

Monell’s requirement.” See, Thompson v.

City of Los Angeles, 885 F. 2d 1439, 1443

(9t Cir. 1989), overruled on other

grounds by Bull v. City & County of San

Francisco, 595 F. 3d 964 (9t Cir. 2010)

(en banc).

1. Respondents Statement in Their

Oppositional Brief Filed 09/29/2023 alleging,

“Petitioners More Particular Alleged that...

Respondents’ Operation and Repair of the

Municipal Sanitary Sewer and Storm

Drainage System Caused Damage to Their

Property,” is a Genuine disputed issue

Supported by the Record and Now Requires

the Court to Vacate the District Court

Decision. Defendants Admit, “In the course

of ‘diverting’ the combined stormwater and

sewer effluent flow to the sewer treatment

system, it was also discovered that a portion

of the piping that connected to the larger,

existing sewage collection system was

constructed with corrugated-steel piping.”

See, ROA.1083. In 1963, THE Supreme

Court wrote that “conventional notions of

12

finality of litigation have no place where life

or liberty is at stake and infringement of

constitutional rights is alleged.” See

Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8

(1963)

. The decision below directly conflicts with

Supreme Court precedent; in Dugan v.

Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963); establishing no

showing of Fault is required for liability in

diversion cases.

Under a Pro se liberal construction of the

pleadings the record on appeals shows,

Municipal Respondents City of Clarksdale,

Clarksdale Public Works, and Clarksdale

Public Utilities are (1). Policy Makers Under

Section 1983. (2). Violation of Policy of City

of Clarksdale “Ordinance” Chapter 11.

Health and Sanitation Sec. 14-25(b)(9); or

custom has been established. (3). Liability

has been established and the District

Court’s summary judgment order should be

vacated.

- Document # [251] Filed: 11/12/2021 Page 12

of 13 PageID#: 1093 also document photos

cited above in 4;20-cv-00032-DMB-JMV

ROA.1084.

13.

. The Court held in Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S.

609 (1963); no fault is required for liability

to be established in diversion cases under

the exceptions to the Doctrine of sovereign

immunity.

. Defendants Admit, “In the course of

‘diverting’ the combined stormwater and

sewer effluent flow to the sewer treatment

system, it was also discovered that a portion

of the piping that connected to the larger,

existing sewage collection system was

constructed with corrugated-steel piping.”

See, ROA.1083.

. A policy “promulgated, adopted, or ratified

by a local governmental entity’s legislative

body unquestionably satisfies Monell’s

requirement.” See, Thompson v. City of Los

Angeles, 885 F. 2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989),

overruled on other grounds by Bull v. City &

County of San Francisco, 595 F. 3d 964 (9th

Cir. 2010) (en banc).

. Moreover, a policy of inaction may be a

municipal policy within the meaning of

Monell. See, Waggy v. Spokane County

Washington, 594 F. 3d 707, 713 (9th Cir.

2010); Fairley v. Luman, 281, F. 3d 913, 918

(9th Cir.2002) (per curiam). See, Photo No.

(1) App.1 showing Raw Sewage and Strom

Drain water escaping Public Use Utility

Easement prior to repairs in fall 2017.

14.

8. A choice among alternatives by a municipal

official with final decision-making authority

may also serve as the basis of municipal

liability. See, Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,

475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986); Waggy, 594 F.

3d at 713 (explaining that a policy has been

defined as a deliberate choice, made from

among various alternatives, to follow a

course of action). Also see Affidavit

Document [187] of City of Clarksdale

Engineer, Arch Corley. Clarksdale Public

Utihties hired “Private Contractor to make

repairs under the delta Cinema using slip

joint technology to repair.

9. (1). The conduct complained of was

committed by a person Municipality

Respondents City of Clarksdale, Clarksdale

Public Works, and Clarksdale Public

Utilities in their failure to remain compliant

with their own_City Ordinance Ch. 11- sec.

14-25(b)(9) which strictly forbid the

collection of unsanitary waters within the

City Limits as shown in App.1 photo their

public use utility easement located on our

personal property and used to divert sewage

effluent and storm water escaping due to the

drain losing its water-tight and gas-tight

characteristics and as a result, Petitioner

personal property was flooded and the

15.

damages alleged in complaint document [1].

See photo Exabits contained in appendix

showing sewage effluent and storm water

exiting the public use utility easement and

escaping into the foundation soils. (2). This

conduct deprived the plaintiffs of

constitutional rights. Arch Corley admitted

to Complaint Document No. [ 1 ] question

Defendants operating a “Storm Sewer” being

operated for the good of the public is lying

and situated in a northerly and southernly

direction under the Theatre floor.

CONCLUSION

1. These are precisely the type of factual

issues that need to be resolved in full

briefing. For these reasons, rehearing is

appropriate. See, (Schweiker v. Hansen,

450 U.S. 785, 791 (1981) (Marshall, J.,

dissenting) (‘summary disposition only

appropriate in cases where law is settled

and stable, the facts are not in dispute,

and the decision below is clearly in

error”).

16.

16.F.R.C.P. subdivision (e)(2) — show that the

movant is entitled to it. Considering some

facts undisputed does not of itself allow

summary judgment. If there is a proper

response or reply as to some facts, the Court

cannot grant summary judgment without

determining whether those facts can be

genuinely disputed.

17.F.R.C.P. 52(b) ‘Plain Error Rule’ provides a

plain error that affects a substantial right

may be considered even though it was not

brought to the Court’s attention.

18.There need be no showing of maliciousness,

willfulness, or fault to support a finding of

liability under the Act 86 Stat. 816, 33

U.S.C. sec. 1251, and 1251(a) et seq. of the

law. See, e.g., U.S. v. Texas pipeline

company, 611 F. 2d 345, 347 (10t Cir. 1979).

19.As a government actor, it is the Defendant’s

burden to justify its actions as consistent

with the U.S. Constitution. See, Vugo, Inc.

v. City of New York, 931 F. 3d 42, 48 (2d Cir.

2019) (citing Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,564

U.S, 552, 571-572, 131s. Ct. 2653, 180 L. Ed.

2d 544 (2011).

17.

The Court in Kemp v. U.S. decided

(06/13/2022), held Trial Court Judge’s

mistakes are reviewable under F.R.C.P.

60(b)(1).

20.“Under appropriate circumstances, damage

to property will be construed as a taking.”

See, Porter v. United States, 473 F2d 1329,

1336 n.9 (5¢ Cir. 1973).

Pro se Petitioners pray in the name of Jesus,

that the Court uses its discretionary

authority to ensure that God’s will shall be

done to correct the injustice committed in

this civil action.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce Ellis and Willie Ellis

Petitioners Pro Se

P.O. BOX 131

Sumner, MS 38957

(662) 902-4782

November 25, 2023

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

RECORD ON APPEAL

PHOTOGRAPHS

. Combined Sewer and Storm Drain under

Theatre Floor Fall 2017................4. App.1

. Rusted out Sewer and Storm Drain

Removed During Repairs by Private

ContractOr.........cccccccececessceesceusese App.2

. Clarksdale Public Utilities General

Manager Curtis Boschert and 3 C.P.U.

Employees Performing Discretionary

Duties in Manhole Under Theatre......App.3

. Respondent Bruce Ellis Taking Photos of

Work as it was Being Done in Replacing

Rusted Out Galvanized Steel Pipe Shown in

App. 1, 2, 8. cececcceccceceseceuceesseevenens App.4

. Photo of C.P.U. Employee Brad Hanks in

Blue T-Shirt Observing 4 Suncoast

Employees as the Work of Repairing Rusted

Out Sewer Drain Under Delta

CIMeMA.........cec ccs sceeeeeceseeceteceeecees App.5

. Photo of Material private Contractor to

Repair Rusted Out Galvanize Steel Sewer

Drain Shown I App.1 ...............0065 App.6

App.1

WY TOEN LR Be

POSHEYTD HO ALD

MOOS 30 AUD

PPPLIDYGLS *

SMUMDIGNGLD

Gabecsey **

Ga} 4sg {e207 ©

(>) 451g 2207 SF

vayndinc} Wy.

soopin

FMyAg =

. nsnyy

E B 5 sjusur0g |.

WERINVISUMO| ‘ saueig &”

17022422760

JO0,0} 200 song wet F

App.3.

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-35]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]