Blake v. Wilson, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-00780-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00780-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-17-2007
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: False imprisonment - Discovery - URCCC 4.04 - Motion for recusal - Collateral attack - Tort Claims Act - Immunity - Section 11-46-9(1)(a), (c), & (d) - Qualified immunity
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS - OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-01-2005
Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: William E. Chapman, III
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED
Case Number: 2004-286C

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: CHRISTOPHER T. BLAKE AND ROBERT BLAKE




DAVID M. SESSUMS



 

Appellee: RICHARD WILSON, RICHARD LAWRENCE, RONNIE PENNINGTON, SHERIFF OF RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, AND BILLY LUKE JACQUELINE H. RAY, J. LAWSON HESTER  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: False imprisonment - Discovery - URCCC 4.04 - Motion for recusal - Collateral attack - Tort Claims Act - Immunity - Section 11-46-9(1)(a), (c), & (d) - Qualified immunity

Summary of the Facts: Christopher Blake and Robert Blake filed an action against Richard Wilson, Richard Lawrence, Ronnie Pennington, and Billy Luke, based on an incident involving the Rankin County Sheriff’s Department’s enforcement of a custody order. The court granted summary judgment on behalf of the officers. The Blakes appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Discovery The Blakes argue that the court erred in allowing the officers to file discovery requests after the expiration of the period of time allowed by URCCC 4.04, because the officers did not file a written motion requesting a discovery extension. Trial courts enjoy wide discretion in managing their dockets and conducting discovery; therefore, the court did not err in setting out a schedule for discovery in this case, despite the fact that the officers did not file a written motion requesting an extension of discovery. Issue 2: Motion for recusal The Blakes argue that the court erred in denying a motion requesting the recusal of both circuit court judges for Rankin County, because Lawrence and Wilson are employed in some official capacity by Rankin County. Recusal is mandated only when a fair-minded person, knowing all the facts, might reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. While Lawrence and Wilson are both employed in some capacity by Rankin County, there is no evidence to indicate that they were well-known to either judge. Therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to recuse himself. Issue 3: Collateral attack The Blakes argue that the court’s grant of summary judgment acts as a collateral attack on the Rankin County custody order. This contention is without merit, as the Blakes’ suit concerns a civil action against various officials. Issue 4: Immunity The Blakes argue that they have produced genuine issues of material fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment. There is no evidence, and no contention by the Blakes, to indicate that any of the officers acted in a personal capacity. Because the individuals were all acting in their official roles, they cannot be held personally liable for any acts or omissions occurring within the course and scope of their duties. The officers are entitled to immunity under section 11-46-9(1)(a), which grants immunity to governmental employees whose conduct arises out of a judicial action. The officers are also entitled to immunity under section 1-46-9(1)(c) since nothing in the record suggests that the officers acted with reckless disregard in enforcing the custody order. They are also entitled to immunity under section 11-46-9(1)(d), because the record shows that the officers acted with discretion and were forced to make choices that involved social, economical, or political policy alternatives. The officers are also entitled to qualified immunity, because they did not violate the Constitution or any statute.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court