Skip to main content

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT


On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Mississippi 


Table of Contents CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS............................................i 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................iii 

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT.............................................................1 

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED....................................................1 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................................................4

A. Procedural History.............................................................................4 

B. Statement Of Facts..............................................................................6 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................11 ARGUMENT...........................................................................................16

 Standard Of Review..............................................................................16 

I. THE DISTRICT COURT VIOLATED McGRUDER BY EVALUATING ONLY THE FORMAL COMPLAINT........................18 

II. THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY WITHOUT THE REQUIRED FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS.................23 

III. STUART IS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE ON THREE INDEPENDENT THEORIES, AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOES NOT BAR THOSE CLAIMS AT THE PLEADING STAGE................27 

IV. THE MONELL CLAIMS SURVIVE ON FOUR INDEPENDENT PATHS..................................................................................................33 

V. THE LEE COUNTY COURT’S CONSTITUTIONAL FINDINGS HAVE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1738...................45 

VI. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE FAILS: ARNOLD’S CLAIMS DID NOT ACCRUE UNTIL THE JULY 5, 2023 DISMISSAL ..............................................................................................................49 

VII. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND WAS ERROR.......................................................................................51 

VIII. THE MAGISTRATE’S DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WAS CONTRARY TO WOODFIELD..55 

CONCLUSION........................................................................................60 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...................................................................63 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE....................


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases 

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) ................... 2, 14, 18, 25, 26, 46, 47 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................... 19

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) .................................................... 48 

Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) ............... 53 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................... 17 

Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) ............................................ 13, 31 

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) ....... 2, 12, 24, 25, 26, 28, 62 Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) ............................................ 12, 25, 26

 Caissie v. State, 254 So. 3d 849 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) ...... 7, 13, 32, 33, 51 

Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2002) ............................... 20 

Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307 (5th Cir. 2022) ......................... 13, 29, 62 

City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) ........................ 2, 14, 35, 47 

City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988) ............... 3, 14, 41, 62 Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948) .................................................... 32 

Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988) .......................................... 16, 57, 62 

FTC v. American Municipal Services Corp., No. 4:17-cv-00168 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................................. 9, 18, 36, 44, 54 

Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653 (2024) .............................................. 31 

Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................. 20, 53

 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ............................................. 17, 53 

Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., Inc., 891 So. 2d 224 (Miss. 2005) .. 47 

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) ......................................... 13, 30 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) .................................................... ............................................3, 14, 15, 38, 39, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 60

Hughes v. Tobacco Inst., 278 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2001) ......................... 17 

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) .............................................. 24 

Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017) ........................................ 31 

McGruder v. Phelps, 608 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1979) ................................... .............................................. 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 61, 62 

Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) ........ 47 iv

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) ..................................... ............................................ 2, 11, 13, 14, 24, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 46, 49, 61 

Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) ......................................... 16, 58, 62 

Moore v. City of Grand Prairie, 2013 WL 1174457 (N.D. Tex. 2013) ......... ................................................................................................ 13, 30, 32, 33 

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019) ................................................... 30 

Olivier v. City of Brandon, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) ...................................... 52 

Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) ............. 16, 50, 57, 62 

Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989) .................................................... 50 

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) .............................. 47 

Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982) .......................... 16, 58, 62 

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) ... 3, 14, 39, 40, 54, 62 

Ricks v. City of Winona, 858 F. Supp. 2d 682 (N.D. Miss. 2012) ........... 50 

Salazar v. Molina, 37 F.4th 278 (5th Cir. 2022) ...................................... 29 

Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2000) .................... 53 

Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022) ...................... 3, 13, 15, 31, 51, 52 

Vann v. City of Southaven, 884 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2018) ................. 29, 63 

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) ..................................................... 51 

Webster v. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc) ............ ...................................................................................... 3, 14, 42, 45, 54, 62 

White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017) ......................................................... 33 

Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) ................................... .................................................................... 4, 15, 16, 19, 56, 57, 59, 62, 63 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ....................................................................................... 1 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 ....................................................................................... 1 

28 U.S.C. § 1343 ....................................................................................... 1 2

8 U.S.C. § 1738 ................................... 3, 6, 14, 15, 16, 19, 46, 47, 50, 62 42

 U.S.C. § 1983 ........... 1, 4, 11, 15, 16, 19, 39, 47, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 60

 Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 ..................................................................... 50

 Miss. Code Ann. § 21-3-5 ....................................................................... 34 

Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-1(6) ................................................................... 9

Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-3 ..................................................................... 34 

Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-7(3) ................................................................. 32 v 

Miss. Code Ann. § 99-37-7 ..................................................................... 54 

Rules Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) .................................................................................. 1

Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) .............................................................................. 65 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ............................................................................. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 51, 55, 60, 62 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) .......................................................................... 16, 61 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ................................................................................ 23 

Fed. R. Evid. 201 .............................................................................. 17, 26 

5th Cir. R. 28.2.1 ...................................................................................... i 

Other Authorities Miss. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2014-00090, 2014 WL 1513511 (Mar. 21, 2014) ................................................................................................. 18, 25 

Miss. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2015-00323, 2015 WL 6121930 (Sept. 18, 2015) ..................................................................................... 18, 25, 40, 54

 Miss. Att'y Gen. Op., 2024 WL 4357291 (June 24, 2024) ...................... 18

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

New Jersey Rules Of Court

3:2-Contents of Complaints, Arrest Warrant and Summons 3:2-1-Contents of Complaint; Citizen Complaints for Indictable Offenses; Forwarding of Indictable Complaints to Prosecutor and Criminal Division Manager; Forwarding of Investigative Reports to Prosecutor You can read more of the Municipal Courts procedure that the Administrative Judge Law/Municipal Judge Law who is an Administrative Judge. 3:2-2-Summons A summons shall be made on a Complaint-Summons (CDR-1) form, a Uniform Traffic Ticket, a Special Form of Complaint and Summons, or such other form as may be approved by the Administrative Director of the Courts. The summons shall be directed to the person named in the complaint, requiring that person to appear before the court in which the complaint is made at a stated time and place, and shall indicate that there will be consequences for failure to appear at the scheduled first appearance. If the individual fails to appear at that first appearance, a notice shall issue advising the...
Post a Comment
Read more

NJ Transit bus strikes, kills pedestrian. Another person seriously injured Koran Tajhai Dupree Baker, a 25-year-old Newark

  Another Life Lost to NJ Transit: When Will It End? Early Sunday morning, tragedy struck in Newark when an NJ Transit bus hit two pedestrians, leaving one dead and another seriously injured. According to the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, the incident occurred at 12:18 a.m. on the 400 block of Springfield Avenue. Koran Tajhai Dupree Baker, a 25-year-old Newark resident, succumbed to his injuries at a local hospital. The second victim remains hospitalized, fighting to recover. Here we are in 2025, and NJ Transit buses continue to take lives under Governor Phil Murphy’s administration. How many more people must be injured or killed before real accountability is enforced? It’s time for action. A class action lawsuit needs to be filed against NJ Transit on behalf of all living victims and the families of those who have lost their lives due to reckless bus drivers. These drivers must be held accountable—this is not just negligence; these are murders on wheels . NJ Transit has ...
Post a Comment
Read more
 "The federal statutes that force my opponent to comply with discovery are Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 34, and 37. Rule 34 requires production within 30 days of a request. Rule 37 allows me to file a Motion to Compel if they fail to produce, and authorizes the Court to impose sanctions, award fees, strike their pleadings, or enter default judgment for willful non-compliance. Rule 37(e) also addresses spoliation of electronically stored information including body-worn camera footage and CAD records. In the District of New Jersey, Local Civil Rule 37.1 required me to complete a meet and confer before filing — which I completed on April 30, 2026." If you are trying to compel discovery and don't know what local rules and statutes govern compliance, you are wasting your time, and showing that you might not know what you are doing and aren't credible. This is akin to the tail wagging the dog or putting the cart before the horse. Sending a notice to opposing counsel achieves nothing...
Post a Comment
Read more