District Court, S.D. Mississippi — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Chestang v. ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2011-05-17 · cited 9×
This case involves a former student at Alcorn State University who sued the university, its Board of Trustees, and a professor, alleging that the professor sexually harassed him through comments and physical contact, leading to his withdrawal and transfer. The plaintiff brought federal claims under Title IX for sexual harassment and discrimination, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process and equal protection, and state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and assault and battery. The court dismissed the Title IX claims against the individual defendant, the due process claim, and all state-law claims on grounds including improper service, Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to state a claim, and procedural bars under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. It denied dismissal of the equal protection claim, finding that the right to be free from sexual harassment by a state actor was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct, so qualified immunity did not apply. The decision rests on application of pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal, service rules under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and qualified immunity precedents.
civil rightsproceduretorts & liability
Peyton v. CITY OF YAZOO CITY, MISS.
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2011-01-07 · cited 2×
The case involves Patricia Peyton, an African-American Deputy City Clerk for the City of Yazoo City, Mississippi, who sued the city and officials alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under federal law after her brother-in-law publicly criticized city practices, which she was suspected of leaking information about; the claims centered on her not being interviewed or hired for City Clerk, a 10% pay cut, and the reassignment of a purchasing agent role to a white employee whose position was reduced. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation in several instances, and even where a prima facie case might exist, the city provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons such as budget shortfalls and superior qualifications that the plaintiff did not show were pretextual.
civil rightslabor & employment
Dean v. Walker
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2011-01-06
This case arose from a car accident in which an escaped inmate from a Mississippi correctional facility, fleeing police in a stolen patrol car, crossed the center line and struck the plaintiffs' vehicle head-on during a high-speed pursuit by Sheriff Peter Walker and deputies. The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment violations against Jefferson County and the sheriff in his official capacity, plus a state-law claim under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act alleging reckless disregard by the officers. After earlier rulings had eliminated other claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining federal claims, holding that the evidence showed no intent to harm unrelated to the legitimate pursuit and thus no due process violation occurred. The court then declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claim and remanded it to Mississippi state court.
civil rightsproceduretorts & liability
United States v. Clifton
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2010-12-09
The case concerned defendant James Christopher Clifton's motion to dismiss his indictment under the Federal Speedy Trial Act, following his September 2009 arrest on charges of violating 18 U.S.C. § 912. After the court ordered a mental competency evaluation, delays occurred in transporting Clifton to a Bureau of Prisons facility and completing the evaluation, raising questions about whether excess transportation time beyond ten days was nonexcludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and constituted a violation. The court reviewed the timelines, the exclusion provisions for competency examinations under § 3161(h)(1)(A), and the procedures followed by the U.S. Marshals Service and Bureau of Prisons. It analyzed whether specific periods of delay were excludable from the speedy trial clock based on statutory language and case precedent.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Beals
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2010-11-08
In United States v. Beals, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming a violation of the Speedy Trial Act because more than seventy days had passed since his initial appearance without a trial. The court examined the timeline, excluding periods attributable to pretrial motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) and (H), as well as time for continuances granted for the ends of justice and the unavailability of an essential government witness under § 3161(h)(3)(A). After calculating that only forty-seven days had run on the speedy trial clock, the court denied both the motion and supplemental motion to dismiss. The court also granted the government's motion for a continuance and set trial for November 16, 2010.
criminal lawprocedure
Hall v. Newmarket Corp.
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2010-09-29 · cited 5×
The case involved plaintiff Theresa Hall, who sued her former employer's health plan sponsor NewMarket and claims administrator Aetna under Mississippi state law after Aetna incorrectly represented that her lapsed ERISA plan coverage remained active, leading her to drop alternative insurance before a needed double-lung transplant. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of ERISA preemption. The court granted reconsideration, held that the state claims for equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress were completely preempted under ERISA § 502 because they were intertwined with the administration and interpretation of an ERISA plan, and dismissed them while allowing Hall an opportunity to amend her complaint to assert federal ERISA claims.
healthcarefederal powertorts & liability