Davis v. Harrison County, Mississippi et al, No. 1:2014cv00286 - Document 16 (S.D. Miss. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion to Stay Proceedings; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss; granting 12 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 1/28/2015. (JCH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis v. Harrison County, Mississippi et al Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION KIRSTEN DAVIS, as Administratrix § of the Estate of Troy M. Davis, § Deceased § § v. § § HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, § and JOHN MCADAMS § PLAINTIFF CIVIL NO.: 1:14-CV-286-HSO-RHW DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S [7] MOTION TO STAY, GRANTING DEFENDANT HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI’S [8] MOTION TO DISMISS, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT JOHN MCADAMS’ [12] MOTION TO DISMISS BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion to Stay [7] filed by Plaintiff Kirsten Davis, as Administratrix of the Estate of Troy M. Davis, Deceased. Defendants Harrison County, Mississippi, and John McAdams have filed Responses [10] [11] to the Motion to Stay. Also before the Court are the separate Motions to Dismiss [8] [12] filed by Defendant Harrison County, Mississippi, and Defendant John McAdams. Plaintiff has filed a Response [14] to both Motions. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the record, and relevant legal authorities, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay should be denied, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss should be granted, and this case should be dismissed. I. BACKGROUND On December 13, 2013, the Estate of Troy M. Davis, through its Administratrix Kirsten Davis, filed a complaint against Harrison County, Mississippi, and John McAdams (collectively, “Defendants”) in this Court. The case 1 Dockets.Justia.com was assigned to Chief United States District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. See Docket, Case Number 1:13-CV-459-LG-JCG (“Davis I”). The Davis I complaint identified the plaintiff as “the Estate of Troy M. Davis . . . administered by Kirsten Davis[]” and advanced against Defendants a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from a county administrator’s alleged embezzlement of $33,000.00 from the Estate of Troy M. Davis. Davis I Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3-24 [1]. On January 22, 2014, the Davis I plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserted the same claims and redesignated the plaintiff as “Kirsten Davis as Administratrix of the Estate of Troy M. Davis, Deceased[] . . . .” Davis I First Am. Compl. ¶ 1 [3]. Defendants in Davis I have moved to dismiss that case on grounds that the Davis I plaintiff failed to timely effect service of process upon them. Harrison County Mot. to Dismiss 3 [16]; McAdams’ Mot. to Dismiss 4 [18]. On July 22, 2014, Plaintiff instituted the present case. The Complaint [1] in this case advances a claim for municipal liability against these same Defendants that is substantively identical to the claim lodged against Defendants in Davis I. Compl. ¶¶ 6-31 [1]. In the Complaint before this Court, Plaintiff is identified as “Kirsten Davis as Administratrix of the Estate of Troy M. Davis.” Id. at ¶ 1. On November 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Stay [7] requesting a stay of this case “pending ruling in [Davis I]” on Defendants’ motions to dismiss in Davis I. Mot. to Stay 1 [7]. Defendants here object to any stay arguing this case unnecessarily duplicates Davis I and Plaintiff has cited no authority for imposing a stay. Harrison County’s Resp. to Mot. to Stay 2 [10]; McAdams’ Resp. to Mot. to Stay 1 [11]. 2 II. DISCUSSION “When a plaintiff files a second complaint alleging the same cause of action as a prior, pending, related action, the second complaint may be dismissed.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 95 F.3d 358, 362 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Oliney v. Gardner 771 F.2d 856, 859 (5th Cir. 1985)) (internal marks omitted). “This rule finds particular application where, as here, the plaintiff files the second complaint to achieve procedural advantage by ‘circumventing the rules pertaining to the amendment of complaints.’” Id. “[T]here is no reason why courts should be bothered or litigant[s] harassed with duplicating lawsuits on the same docket . . . .” Oliney, 771 F.2d at 859 (citing Sutcliffe Storage and Warehouse Co. v. United States, 162 F.2d 849, 851 (1st Cir. 1947)). It appears beyond dispute that no factual or temporal difference exists between the identity of the parties, the subject matter, or claims of this case and those in Davis I, which is presently pending before Judge Guirola. In fact, the record indicates that this case is nearly identical to Davis I. That Plaintiff filed this case “to insure [sic] no statute of limitation runs while awaiting” a decision on the motions to dismiss pending in Davis I reveals Plaintiff’s purpose for filing this civil action was simply to avoid the statute of limitations related to the claims being asserted. Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss 1 [14]. Such a purpose is insufficient to avoid dismissal of this action. See Friends of the Earth, 95 F.3d at 362 (noting the rules prohibiting the filing of duplicative complaints in separate civil actions are particularly applicable where “the plaintiff files the second 3 complaint to achieve procedural advantage”) (citation omitted). Because Plaintiff has “no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against” Defendants, this civil action should be dismissed. Oliney, 771 F.2d at 859 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay [7] should be denied and that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [8] [12] should be granted resulting in the dismissal of this case. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Stay [7] filed by Plaintiff Kirsten Davis, as Administratrix of the Estate of Troy M. Davis, Deceased, is DENIED. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Harrison County, Mississippi’s Motion to Dismiss [8] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against Harrison County are DISMISSED. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant John McAdams’ Motion to Dismiss [12] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against McAdams are DISMISSED. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 28th day of January, 2015. s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
