Case Law Culberson v. Clay Cnty.

Culberson v. Clay Cnty.

Document Cited Authorities (23) Cited in Related
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

SHARION AYCOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This civil action stems from the March 15, 2019 death of Dale O'Neal at the Clay County Detention Center in West Point Mississippi. On July 15, 2021, Yashia Culberson, individually and on behalf of all heirs-at-law and wrongful death beneficiaries of Dale O'Neal, deceased, and the Estate of Dale O'Neal (collectively the Plaintiffs) brought suit against Clay County, Sheriff Eddie Scott in his individual and official capacities, and Jail Employees John Does 1-5. With leave of court, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint [33] on April 21, 2022, additionally naming as defendants Officer Tim Townsend, Officer Annie Avant, and Officer Cynthia Myles, in their individual and official capacities.[1] The Defendants have filed Motions [103] [106], [108], [110] seeking dismissal of all claims against them. The Motions [103], [106], [108], [110] have been fully briefed and are ripe for review.[2]

Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

Dale O'Neal was arrested on March 8, 2019, by the West Point Police Department and transported to the Clay County Detention Center. He was arrested pursuant to a bench warrant for failure to appear issued by the Municipal Court of West Point, Mississippi, and on an arrest warrant for a trespassing charge that was issued by the Clay County Justice Court. On March 12, 2019, he appeared before the Municipal Court and was ordered to serve four more days in jail and post a cash bond. The Municipal Court ordered that he be released on March 15, 2019. On March 14, 2019, O'Neal appeared before the Clay County Justice Court and was ordered to be released with time served on that day. Therefore, due to the Municipal Court's Order, O'Neal's Release Certificate states that he was to be released on March 15, 2019, at 8:00 a.m. See [110], Ex. 1.

While O'Neal was in custody, on March 13, 2019, Cameron Henderson was arrested by Officer Parker Smith of the West Point Police Department. Henderson was arrested for disturbing the peace of a business and also pursuant to an outstanding warrant for shoplifting. Describing Henderson's arrest at his deposition, Officer Smith testified that on March 13, 2019, he was dispatched to 5 Star Deli when Henderson's grandmother called 911 and said that Henderson was at the deli threatening her with a knife.[3] As Officer Smith arrived at the business, he witnessed Henderson “trying to push his way into the door” and then successfully entering the store. [118], Ex. 6 at p. 6. Describing the events further, Officer Smith stated that, once inside the store, he saw Henderson “inside the clerk's face,” who was his grandmother, “yelling and cussing at her.” Id. Officer Smith testified that [a]t that moment, [Henderson] began reaching into his pockets,” and Officer Smith grabbed Henderson's hands to stop him due to the 911's caller statement that he had a knife. Id. Officer Smith then placed Henderson (whom he described as agitated) under arrest and placed him in the back of his patrol unit.

According to Officer Smith, on the night of Henderson's arrest, he interviewed Henderson's grandmother, Patty Kimbrough, as well as Henderson's other grandmother, Brenda Henderson, with whom Henderson had apparently traveled to the store. Kimbrough advised Officer Smith that Henderson “was coming off a two or three day high,” and both grandmothers advised him that Henderson had threatened them with a knife. Id. at p. 8-9. Officer Smith confirmed that he found a knife on Henderson's person.

After arresting Henderson, Officer Smith transported him to the Clay County Detention Center and filled out a Clay County Sheriff's Office Jail Intake Sheet,” which he gave to Officer Annie Avant, the booking officer on duty on March 13, 2019. See [103], Ex. 2 at p. 7. The intake sheet listed a third charge-simple assault by threat-that was crossed out. At his deposition, Officer Smith stated that the third charge was crossed out because Henderson's grandmothers did not meet with his lieutenant to pursue the charge. At 2:30 p.m., Officer Avant assigned Henderson to cell “NLD 2”-the cell where O'Neal was housed. See id. at p. 5.[4]

On March 15, 2019, at 4:23 a.m., Officer Cynthia Myles performed “jail checks” and passed out medicine to inmates at the jail. [110], Ex. 4 at p. 30. When Officer Myles asked Henderson and O'Neal if they wanted something to drink, they both held their cups out of their cell flap and stood where she could see them.[5] Officer Myles' shift ended at 7:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter at 7:40 a.m.-less than an hour before he was due to be released-O'Neal was found unresponsive in his jail cell and later pronounced dead. It was subsequently determined that Henderson strangled O'Neal to death with the two-foot-long cord attached to the phone in their jail cell.[6]

According to Sheriff Scott, from the time he began working at the Clay County Sheriff's Office in 1999 until O'Neal's murder in 2019, no inmate or detainee had used a phone cord to kill a cellmate. See [103], Ex. 6 at p. 5.

Of additional importance in this case is a Chancery Court matter concerning Henderson that was filed on March 14, 2019-the day after Henderson was arrested and the day before O'Neal was murdered. On that day, Keith Kimbrough, Henderson's grandfather, filed a Motion and Application for the Emergency Commitment of the Respondent for Alcohol/Drug Addiction in the Chancery Court of Clay County. See [103], Ex. 5. The Motion sought to have Henderson committed because, his grandfather alleged, he “has lost the power of self-control with respect to the use of alcoholic beverages/habit forming drugs” and is likely to inflict physical harm upon himself or others unless immediately committed. Id. at p. 3-4. On the day the Motion was filed, the Chancery Court judge signed an Order directing the Clerk of Court to issue a Writ commanding the sheriff to take Henderson into custody and transport him to a physician for a physical examination for drug and alcohol commitment. Id. at p. 12. The fax report at the top of the documents shows that the Clerk's office faxed the Motion and Order to the Sheriff's Office at 9:54 a.m. on March 15, 2019-approximately two hours after O'Neal had been found dead. See [103], Ex. 5 at p. 1.[7]

The Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court on July 15, 2021. Their Amended Complaint [33] brings numerous claims against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Mississippi state law. In particular, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants “violated Mr. O'Neal's due process rights and/or exerted cruel and unusual punishment” when they assigned O'Neal a “mentally unstable cellmate that was known to have exhibited dangerous propensities” and otherwise failed to monitor and protect O'Neal from harm. [33] at p. 10.[8] The Plaintiffs allege that Clay County and Sheriff Scott are liable under Monell because they maintain customs, policies, and practices that demonstrate deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of those like O'Neal-namely, policies regarding cell assignments for those with mental illness and policies regarding dangerous items in the jail. Similarly, the Plaintiffs allege that Clay County and Sheriff Scott failed to protect O'Neal by improperly training, supervising, and retaining jail employees. The Plaintiffs also bring claims for supervisory liability, failure to intervene, negligence, and wrongful death.

Through their Motions [103], [106], Clay County, Sheriff Scott, and Officer Avant seek dismissal of all federal claims against them. The Plaintiffs have withdrawn their federal claims against Officer Myles. See [123]. Through a separate Motion [108], the Defendants seek dismissal of all state law claims as well.[9]

Analysis and Discussion

The Court will first address the Motions [103], [106] seeking dismissal of the federal claims and thereafter address the state law claims.

I. Federal Claims

Clay County, Sheriff Scott, and Officer Avant have filed Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, or, alternatively, Motions for Summary Judgment [103], [106]. Sheriff Scott and Officer Avant raise the defense of qualified immunity with respect to all claims lodged against them in their individual capacities.

Though the Motions [103], [106] are styled as requests for judgment on the pleadings, or, alternatively, summary judgment, the parties have attached extensive documents that go beyond the pleadings. The Court will therefore apply the summary judgment standard. See, e.g., Boateng v. B.P., PLC, 779 Fed.Appx. 217, 219 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d)) (“A district court converts a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion when ‘matters outside of the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court.').

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant shows “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex