Elkins v. McKenzie
| Docket Number: | 2002-IA-00845-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-IA-00845-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-30-2003 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Section 1983 liability - Tort Claims Act - M.R.C.P. 8 - Qualified immunity Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Dissent Joined By : McRAE, GRAVES, J., P.J., COBB, J., Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Cobb, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2002 Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: Granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motion of the some defendants. Case Number: 98-0164 |
|
| Consolidated: 2002-CA-00853-SCT Modener McKenzie, Wife and Next Friend of Eddie McKenzie, Deceased v. City of Columbia, Mississippi, Jerry Howie, and Officer Pearlie Hendricks | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Greg Elkins |
LAWRENCE ELDER HAHN
THOMAS D. McNEESE
WILLIAM C. CALLENDER |
||
| Appellee: | Modener McKenzie, Wife and Next Friend of Eddie McKenzie, Deceased | DAVID GLEN GALYON JOHN M. COLETTE |
|
|
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: | Wrongful death - Section 1983 liability - Tort Claims Act - M.R.C.P. 8 - Qualified immunity |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eddie McKenzie was shot by Gregory Elkins, a City of Columbia police officer. Modener McKenzie, the wife of Eddie, filed suit against the City of Columbia, police chief Jerry Howie, and two officers, Elkins and Pearlie Mae Hendricks. All defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, Howie, and Hendricks. The court denied the motion as to Elkins. Modener appeals, and Elkins has been granted permission to bring an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: § 1983 claims Modener argues that the City should not have been granted summary judgment because of the police officers' failure to abide by the Columbia Police Department's policy and procedure manual and the failure to properly train and supervise the officers. The inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for § 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. To demonstrate a municipal custom or policy under § 1983, a plaintiff must at least allege a pattern of similar incidents in which citizens were injured or endangered by intentional or negligent policy, misconduct and/or that serious incompetence or misbehavior which is general or widespread throughout the police force. Modener's claims against the City do not establish its liability under § 1983. Modener fails to identify any facially invalid city policy. Modener also fails to prove that there existed a persistent widespread practice or custom of unwarranted seizures by the City or its employees or that the City demonstrated any deliberate indifference to any known or obvious consequences which might result in any constitutional deprivation from execution or any city policy or any persistent, widespread practice or custom. Under section 1983, supervisory officials are not liable for the actions of subordinates or any theory of vicarious liability. Proof of more than a single instance of the lack of training or supervision causing a violation of constitutional rights is normally required before such lack of training or supervision constitutes deliberate indifference. Modener's proof failed to create a jury issue under this standard with regard to Howie. With regard to officers, a plaintiff will be unable to recover under § 1983 unless he can show that a governmental agent's actions violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known. The first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional (or federal statutory) right. With regard to Hendricks, Hendricks was only one of the officers present at Eddie's home when the events in question transpired and nothing points to the fact that Hendricks ever used any force against Eddie. Therefore, summary judgment was proper on all the § 1983 claims. Issue 2: State law claims Modener argues that the court erred in dismissing her state law claims because she did not bring suit under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. While Modener did not state that the negligence based state law claims were being brought pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, Modener did specify and separate the negligent, tort based state law claims from the constitutional tort claims. Since the Tort Claims Act operates as the exclusive remedy for the state law civil claims against a governmental entity and its employees and M.R.C.P. 8 only requires that notice of a claim be given, the court erred in dismissing Modener's state law claims. Therefore, those claims are remanded. Issue 3: Qualified immunity Elkins argues that the court erred by finding that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly established law. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. The trial court found no immunity for Elkins based upon the fact that Eddie was retreating into his home. However, the judge failed to recognize that Eddie had pointed a loaded gun at Elkins and Hendricks and failed to lower the gun when repeatedly commanded to do so. Eddie fired his weapon at Elkins first and then Elkins returned fire. Eddie's actions placed the officers in imminent danger. Elkins believed that it was his duty to take the actions that he did when confronted with a situation that placed other officers and himself in danger. Therefore, the court erred by denying Elkins summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
