Marvin Arthur v. Tunica County, Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CP-00950-COA
MARVIN ARTHUR
APPELLANT
v.
TUNICA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND TUNICA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEES
05/04/2009
HON. ALBERT B. SMITH III
TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
MARVIN ARTHUR (PRO SE)
DANIEL JUDSON GRIFFITH
ANDREW T. DULANEY
CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED
AFFIRMED – 03/30/2010
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND ISHEE, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
The Tunica County Circuit Court dismissed Marvin Arthur’s complaint against Tunica
County and the Tunica County Sheriff’s Department1 due to Arthur’s failure to give notice
to Tunica County ninety days prior to instituting his action, as required by law. Arthur
1
We note that Tunica County correctly asserts in its brief that the Tunica County
Sheriff’s Department is not a proper party to defend a lawsuit based on the actions of one of
its deputies. See Brown v. Thompson, 927 So. 2d 733, 737 (¶12) (Miss. 2006) (holding that
sheriff’s departments are not political subdivisions within the meaning of the Mississippi
Tort Claims Act and do not enjoy a separate legal existence apart from the county).
appeals, pro se, and asserts that the circuit court erred in dismissing his lawsuit.
¶2.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3.
The incident that gave rise to Arthur’s complaint occurred on June 13, 2008. In his
complaint, filed on December 4, 2008, Arthur alleged that he was walking across a street in
Tunica County when he was forced to jump out of the path of a vehicle that was being driven
by a Tunica County sheriff’s deputy. According to Arthur, he sustained injuries while doing
so. As stated, prior to filing his complaint, Arthur did not provide the notice to Tunica
County that is required by Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46-11(1) (Rev. 2002).
Tunica County and the Tunica County Sheriff’s Department filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit
court granted the motion and dismissed Arthur’s action without prejudice.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
¶4.
The Mississippi Tort Claims Act (the MTCA) is implicated in cases where a suit is
instituted against a governmental agency. An appellate court reviews, de novo, errors of law
as they relate to proper application of the MTCA. Brown, 927 So. 2d at 736 (¶8). Section
11-46-11(1), which sets forth prerequisites that must be met before suit can be brought
against a governmental entity, provides as follows:
After all procedures within a governmental entity have been exhausted, any
person having a claim for injury arising under the provisions of this chapter
against a governmental entity or its employee shall proceed as he might in any
action at law or in equity; provided, however, that ninety (90) days prior to
maintaining an action thereon, such person shall file a notice of claim with the
chief executive officer of the governmental entity.
2
(Emphasis added). In Bunton v. King, 995 So. 2d 694, 695 (¶7) (Miss. 2008) (quoting
Mississippi Department of Public Safety v. Stringer, 748 So. 2d 662, 665 (¶11) (Miss. 1999)),
our supreme court held that “[t]he notice-of-claim requirement ‘imposes a condition
precedent to the right to maintain an action.’” The Bunton court further held “the ninety-day
notice requirement under section 11-46-11(1) is a hard-edged, mandatory rule which [an
appellate court] strictly enforces.” Id. at 696 (¶8) (quoting Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v.
Easterling, 928 So. 2d 815, 820 (¶23) (Miss. 2006)). However, in Stuart v. University of
Mississippi, 21 So. 3d 544, 550 (¶11) (Miss. 2009), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that
“[t]he notice requirements in the MTCA are substantive requirements, which are no more or
less important than a statute of limitations. The notice requirements in the MTCA are not
jurisdictional . . . and, therefore, waivable.”
¶5.
It is undisputed that Arthur failed to comply with section 11-46-11, as he did not file
a notice of claim prior to filing suit against Tunica County. Furthermore, on the facts of this
case, it cannot be legitimately argued that Tunica County waived the ninety-day notice
requirement. As stated, Arthur filed his complaint on December 4, 2008. On December 22,
2008, Tunica County filed its motion to dismiss, alleging, inter alia, that it was entitled to a
dismissal on two grounds: (1) the Tunica County Sheriff’s Department is not a suable entity
under the MTCA, and (2) Arthur had not given the required ninety-day notice prior to
commencing his lawsuit. On December 30, 2008, Arthur filed a motion for change of venue,
but he did not address the gravamen of Tunica County’s motion to dismiss, that is, his failure
to give the required ninety-day notice. On March 11, 2009, Tunica County noticed its
motion to dismiss for a hearing on April 20, 2009. On April 15, 2009, Arthur filed his
3
response to Tunica County’s motion to dismiss, listing five reasons why the court should rule
in his favor.
However, none of the reasons listed addressed the ninety-day-notice
requirement. On May 4, 2009, the circuit court granted Tunica County’s motion to dismiss
on the ground that Arthur failed to comply with the ninety-day-notice requirement.
¶6.
We have thoroughly examined the record and cannot find any evidence that Arthur
ever asserted in any of his pleadings that he, in fact, gave the required ninety-day notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court, dismissing Arthur’s complaint
without prejudice.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
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.