David C. Bramlette

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case arose from a car accident in which an escaped inmate from a Mississippi correctional facility collided with the plaintiffs during a police pursuit by Sheriff Peter Walker and two deputies. The plaintiffs brought federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) alleging reckless disregard. After previously granting summary judgment on most claims, the court had left intact an official-capacity § 1983 claim against the sheriff and an MTCA claim against the county. On the defendants' motion to reconsider, the court addressed the public-duty doctrine but held it inapplicable because the officers were directly operating vehicles in the chase and therefore owed the plaintiffs a specific duty of care separate from their general public duties. The court therefore denied the motion and allowed the remaining MTCA claim to proceed.

civil rightstorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case concerned attorney Latrice Westbrooks' repeated failures to appear at her client Vinson Woodberry's sentencing hearings in a federal drug distribution prosecution, as well as her absence from a pre-sentence report meeting and lack of objections to the report. After a contempt hearing, the district court held Westbrooks in civil contempt for not complying with court orders and abandoning representation after the plea hearing despite multiple continuances granted by the court. The court ordered her to pay $2,972.20 in compensation to the Federal Public Defender's Office, which had assumed representation and secured a lower sentence for the defendant, with further criminal contempt proceedings to follow if payment was not made. The decision rested on evidence of her nonappearances, communications indicating she would not attend, and billing records showing questionable hours for work on the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing Promise Specialty Hospital and Promise Healthcare for professional negligence in the medical care of June Lois Squire, which allegedly caused her severe injuries and death in 2005. After the initial suit was dismissed without prejudice for failing to provide the required 60 days' pre-suit notice under Mississippi law, the plaintiffs refiled more than a year later, prompting the defendants' summary judgment motions on statute of limitations grounds and untimely expert witness designation. The court denied both motions, ruling that the Savings Statute (Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-69) permitted refiling within one year because the dismissal was for a procedural matter of form and the first action had been duly commenced, and that the plaintiffs' delay in designating experts resulted from excusable neglect that could be cured without prejudice given the trial schedule and the necessity of expert testimony in malpractice cases.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

In Adams v. Banks, an inmate at Wilkinson County Correctional Facility sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Eighth Amendment violations from exposure to high levels of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in his cell and pod area, as well as denial of adequate medical care for related symptoms. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report in part, dismissing defendant Walton without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. The court denied summary judgment for defendants Banks and Jackson on the ETS claim, finding genuine issues of material fact on both the objective exposure element and the subjective deliberate indifference element under the Helling v. McKinney test, based on evidence of severe smoking by cellmates, unenforced policies, and the defendants' personal involvement in rejecting the plaintiff's requests. Claims against the remaining defendant and the medical care allegations were addressed in the underlying recommendation but left for further proceedings.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involves defendant Undra Demetrius Johnson, convicted of a 1995 sex offense in Mississippi, who was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for failing to register or update his registration as required by SORNA after moving from Iowa to Mississippi in 2008. Johnson moved to dismiss the indictment, raising multiple challenges including whether actual notice of SORNA was required, and whether the statute violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, Tenth Amendment, Non-Delegation Doctrine, Commerce Clause, or applied without state adoption, as well as whether the Attorney General's interim regulations violated the APA. The court denied the motion in full, holding that Johnson's prior signed acknowledgments of registration duties in Mississippi and Iowa provided sufficient notice, that SORNA's retroactive application and provisions did not violate the constitutional or statutory grounds asserted, that the Attorney General properly invoked the good cause exception to APA notice-and-comment requirements due to public safety needs, and that the federal registration obligation applied independently of state implementation.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

In Woods v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the plaintiff alleged that she began smoking the defendants' tobacco products in 1952 as a result of their false and misleading advertising and misrepresentations regarding safety, health consequences, and addictiveness, bringing claims for deceptive advertising, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent and negligent concealment under Mississippi law. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, while the plaintiff sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two claims under Rule 41. The court denied the voluntary dismissal motion because it was filed late after substantial litigation progress, including summary judgment briefing, which would cause plain legal prejudice to the defendants. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the concealment claims lacked merit due to the absence of any fiduciary or confidential relationship creating a duty to disclose, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact on any claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned an IRS Notice of Levy served on Mission Primary Care Clinic for unpaid taxes owed by physician Markus Stanley, after which Mission continued distributing funds to Stanley and his S-corporation VPCT instead of remitting them to the IRS. The IRS filed a counterclaim against Mission under 26 U.S.C. § 6332(d)(1) seeking recovery of $43,200 plus interest for the post-levy payments, while Mission sought to avoid liability through interpleader and indemnity claims, and Stanley/VPCT moved to dismiss. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and related motions, focusing on the scope of the continuing levy under § 6331(e) for payments tied to services rendered, exemptions claimed by the taxpayer, and which specific distributions occurred before or after service of the levy notice.

taxesfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a wrongful death action brought in 2007 by the minor children of Dinese Johnson, who died in 2001 after an ambulance allegedly failed to respond promptly to 911 calls; the suit sought damages from Med Express and AMR for negligence in the response. AMR moved for summary judgment, contending that the claims were time-barred under Mississippi's two-year medical malpractice or three-year general statute of limitations. The court applied Mississippi substantive law and examined whether the state's minor savings statute tolled the limitations period, holding that it did because no qualified person in esse existed who could have brought the action on the minors' behalf during the statutory window. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was denied.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs who sued their employer LeTourneau Technologies, Inc. and various medical and insurance defendants in Mississippi state court for wrongful discharge and related claims stemming from a work-related injury and the denial of benefits under the federal Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The employer removed the action to federal court asserting federal question jurisdiction under the LHWCA, diversity jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction, prompting the plaintiffs to seek remand. The court analyzed issues of removal procedure, the rule of unanimity among defendants, and whether certain parties were fraudulently misjoined. It ultimately ordered that the claims against LeTourneau Technologies, Inc., Kristy Brogan, and Daniel C. Drew remain in federal court while addressing the severance of other defendants.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Jarvis Ray Shelton, who was convicted of capital murder in Mississippi state court and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Shelton raised multiple claims in his federal petition, including challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, procedural errors in the state proceedings, and issues with identification evidence and jury instructions. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the petition with prejudice after reviewing the state court record and applicable law. The District Court conducted a de novo review of the petitioner's nine specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, found no merit in them, adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and overruled the objections, resulting in dismissal of the habeas petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a Vicksburg firefighter who sued the city and two officials after being demoted, alleging the action violated his First Amendment rights due to a letter to the editor criticizing mayoral and alderman candidates on employee pay, evaluations, and incentives. The defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple claims, including First Amendment free speech, due process, equal protection, and state-law contract and constitutional claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due process property-interest claim, equal protection claim, and certain state-law and Mississippi Constitution claims after finding no genuine issue of material fact, while ordering further briefing on the remaining First Amendment speech claim under the liberty-interest prong of the Due Process Clause and related issues.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over an insurance claim for a house that burned down after foreclosure proceedings. The Mississippi Veterans Home Purchase Board, which had held a mortgage on the property and later acquired it through foreclosure, sued State Farm in Mississippi state court for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer denied coverage, claiming the Board no longer had an insurable interest. State Farm removed the case to federal court, asserting both diversity and federal question jurisdiction due to the involvement of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The district court granted the Board's motion to remand, holding that the Board was an arm of the State of Mississippi and thus not a citizen for diversity purposes, and that the claims did not require resolution of a substantial federal question.

procedureproperty

This case was a personal injury suit filed in Mississippi state court by a nursing home resident against the nursing home company and its individual administrators and licensees. After the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in Howard v. Estate of Harper that administrators and licensees owe no common law, statutory, or fiduciary duty of care to patients absent a doctor-patient relationship, the defendants removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction due to improper joinder of the in-state defendants. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the removal violated the one-year limit under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) for diversity cases that become removable later. The court determined it must resolve the remand motion first as a jurisdictional matter before addressing any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on the merits, and it analyzed whether a post-filing change in state law qualified as an "other paper" triggering removal or permitted equitable tolling of the statutory deadline.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a medical malpractice action originally filed in Mississippi state court by plaintiff Olivia Harden against Field Memorial Community Hospital, a county-owned entity, and later amended to add Quorum Health Resources as a defendant. The defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing that Field Memorial was improperly joined due to the one-year statute of limitations and the plaintiff's failure to provide the required notice under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff moved to remand, contending the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and also sought to dismiss Quorum to destroy diversity. The court addressed the priority of the motions, determining that it must first resolve subject matter jurisdiction and the remand motion before considering dismissal of the non-resident defendant, while analyzing whether the removal was timely based on information in pleadings or other papers.

proceduretorts & liability