Case Law Walton v. City of Verona

Walton v. City of Verona

Document Cited Authorities (34) Cited in (4) Related

Casey Langston Lott, Esq., Thomas Orville Cooley, Esq. (argued), Langston & Lott, P.L.L.C., Booneville, MS, for PlaintiffsAppellees/Cross-Appellants.

Gregory Todd Butler, Esq. (argued), Mallory Kaye Bland, Howard David Clark, III, Esq., Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for DefendantAppellant/Cross-Appellee.

Timothy Michael Peeples, Esq., Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, P.A., Oxford, MS, for DefendantCross-Appellee J.B. Long.

Before Duncan and Wilson, Circuit Judges, and Mazzant, District Judge.*

Amos L. Mazzant, District Judge:

In 2018, the Verona Police Department twice arrested Latavious Betts for his connection to violent shootings. Both times, however, he was released while his charges were pending. Just five months after his second arrest, Latavious Betts drove to Annie Walton's house and opened fire—killing Annie Walton and injuring her grandson, Aliven Walton.

Annie Walton's wrongful death beneficiaries and Aliven Walton (collectively, the Waltons) believe the City of Verona and the Verona Chief of Police, J.B. Long, are responsible for the shooting at Annie Walton's home, so they sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. At summary judgment, the district court initially dismissed all claims. But the Waltons filed a motion for reconsideration, and the district court reversed course—finding the City of Verona was not entitled to sovereign immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The Waltons and the City of Verona subsequently filed interlocutory appeals. For the following reasons, we dismiss the Waltons' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and reverse the district court's finding against the City regarding sovereign immunity.

I.

This case finds its genesis in three shootings that occurred only a few months apart from one another. In each case, Latavious Betts (Betts) was a primary suspect.

On March 22, 2018, three men fired gunshots at a carwash in Verona, Mississippi, and Jaskin Green was killed during the exchange. Verona Police Chief J.B. Long (Long) investigated the incident and interviewed several witnesses connected to the murder. Based on the information he received, Long believed Betts was involved in the shooting, and he convinced Justice Court Judge Hopkins to issue a warrant for Betts's arrest. Betts was taken into custody and placed on an investigatory hold. While in custody, Betts informed Long that he did not know anything about the murder, and he was not present at the carwash when the shooting occurred.

Before Betts was due for his initial appearance, Long called Judge Hopkins, who was away for a judicial conference. During their conversation, Long mentioned that he had a murder suspect who needed a bond amount—never referring to Betts by name. Judge Hopkins recommended a $50,000 bond amount, and Long said he would bring the appropriate paperwork to Judge Hopkins later. After that conversation, Long released Betts on his own recognizance with the intention of presenting the case to the grand jury.

When Judge Hopkins returned from the judicial conference, Long presented bond paperwork for Betts, but Judge Hopkins refused to sign it because he thought Long was referring to a hypothetical criminal defendant during their earlier call—not Betts. Judge Hopkins and Long met with Justice Court Judge Holland, and she determined that the best course of action was to wait for Betts's case to be presented to the grand jury.

Shortly after his release, Betts resurfaced. On July 8, 2018, Long responded to a shooting at a Chevron gas station where two victims had been hit. Long reviewed the store's video surveillance footage, and he immediately identified Betts as one of the shooters. Betts was then arrested for aggravated assault. For his initial appearance, Betts was brought before Judge Holland. Long notified Judge Holland that Betts was out on bail for a prior charge, but Long did not specify that the charge was for first-degree murder. The parties agree that Betts received a $50,000 bond relating to the July shooting.1

Eventually, grand juries indicted Betts for the March and July shootings, and capiases were issued to the Lee County Sheriff's Department to arrest him. Yet, an arrest did not come quick enough: Betts committed another crime before the Lee County Sheriff's Department could seize him.

Betts and Aliven Walton (Aliven) generally knew each other and lived in the same neighborhood. On November 9, 2018, Betts and Aliven arranged a meeting where Betts gave Aliven an ounce of marijuana. Later, a disagreement arose about the transaction—as Aliven believed the drugs were free but Betts expected some type of payment. On December 7, 2018, Betts called Aliven and told him he was coming to Annie Walton's house, where Aliven lived, and planned to "shoot it up." Annie Walton (Annie) called the police, and a sheriff's deputy responded. The deputy spoke with Annie, wrote up some paperwork, and then left the home. Five minutes after the deputy departed, Betts arrived and fired several gunshots into the house. Annie, Aliven, and Aliven's mother were all shot and subsequently rushed to the hospital. And, tragically, Annie died shortly thereafter.

Betts pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and aggravated assault for the shooting at Annie's home. He was not convicted for the other 2018 incidents.

On March 10, 2020, the Waltons filed the current case against the City of Verona (the City) and Long. The Waltons alleged claims for abuse of executive power and state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as additional claims under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). During the proceedings in the district court, the City and Long filed motions for summary judgment, which the district court granted. As for the federal claims, the district court found that the state-created-danger claim should not go forward because the Fifth Circuit has never recognized such a claim. Furthermore, the district court dismissed the claim for abuse of executive power because Long's actions did not "shock the conscience" in a manner to establish liability. Meanwhile, the MTCA claims were dismissed because there was no evidence that Long acted with reckless disregard. So, the City was entitled to sovereign immunity.

Following the summary judgment ruling, the Waltons filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and argued that the district court misapplied the standard for summary judgment in resolving factual disputes and inferences against them. The district court granted in part and denied in part the Waltons' motion. While the court declined to revise its ruling on the Waltons' federal claims, it found that the City was not entitled to sovereign immunity on the MTCA claims. Specifically, the district court concluded there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Waltons had established causation because there was support for the notion that Long acted with reckless disregard in withholding information from Judge Holland.

The City appealed the district court's order on the motion to reconsider. The Waltons cross-appealed the district court's dismissal of their federal claims.

II.

Before reaching the merits of the parties' interlocutory appeals, we turn, as we must, to the issue of jurisdiction. Harris v. Clay Cnty., Miss., 47 F.4th 271, 275 (5th Cir. 2022). The Waltons maintain we lack jurisdiction over the City's appeal. The City and Long counter with the same argument against the Waltons' cross appeal. While the City and Long's point is well-taken, the Waltons' is not.

We generally only have jurisdiction over final decisions of a district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Tracy v. Lumpkin, 43 F.4th 473, 475 (5th Cir. 2022). A district court order "is final and appealable when it ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Elizondo v. Green, 671 F.3d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). As such, an order that dismisses claims against some defendants, but not others, "is not a final appealable judgment" unless the district court certifies the order for appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Id.

That said, pursuant to the collateral-order doctrine, our jurisdiction extends to "a narrow class of decisions that do not terminate the litigation, but are sufficiently important and collateral to the merits that they should nonetheless be treated as final." Tracy, 43 F.4th at 475 (cleaned up) (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 347, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006)). To that end, we typically have jurisdiction over denials of sovereign and qualified immunity because these immunities are "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability," and those immunities are "effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Harris, 47 F.4th at 275 (emphasis in original) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)); P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) (relying on Mitchell and concluding that denials of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity are appealable under the collateral-order doctrine). Likewise, we have held that we may review denials of immunity under Mississippi law because the immunity is a protection from suit. Lampton v. Diaz, 661 F.3d 897, 899 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Bosarge v. Miss. Bureau of Narcotics, 796 F.3d 435, 438-39 (...

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