IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2015-IA-00860-SCT CITY OF V ICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI

v. HERBERT A. WILLIAMS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/13/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W . PATRICK, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: JOHN MICHAEL COLEMAN MARSHALL E. SANDERS COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: W A RREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHN MICHAEL COLEMAN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MARSHALL E. SANDERS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED - 05/26/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE RANDOLPH, P.J., LAMAR AND KITCHENS, JJ. RANDOLPH, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Herbert W illiam s sued the City of V icks b u r g a f t e r h e h a d b e e n a r rested upon i n f o r m i n g p olice of

f icers that he had discharged a f i rearm to prevent an attack by a neighbor’s dog. The city m oved f or dism i ssal, which the Circuit Court of W arren County denied. The city

was granted perm ission to f ile this interlocutory

appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. W i lliam s claim s he discharged his f i rearm to p revent an attack by a neighbor’s dog.
He then c alled 911 to report the incident. W hen of f icers arrived, W illiam s inf orm ed them thathe had reported the incident a nd told them w hat had happened. The of f icers arrested him f

or discharging a f

irearm in the city

lim its. 1 ¶3. W i lliam s ’s c om

plaint alleged that the of

f icers “grossly and negligently arrested [ him ] f or no good cause, causing [ him ] dam ages[ ,] phy sically a nd psy chologic a l l y .” He f urther alleged that the of

f icers acted “ grossly and neglige n t [ l y ]

. . . with com plete disregard to [ W illiam s’s] rights.” He pled tha t the of f icers were acting within the scope of their

em ploy m ent with the city

. F inally , he pled that he had given notice t o the c i ty as required by the Mississippi Tort Claim s Act, that the tim e f or suspending the action under the M TCA had lapsed, and that he was entitled to m aintain the suit. ¶4. The c ity m oved f

or dism issal pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and also p led im m

unity p ursuant to the MTCA. The c ity argued (1) a ssum ing the f acts in the

com plaint were true, n o r e asonable f act f inder could have f

ound the of

f icers acted in reckless disregard of W i lliam s’s s af ety and well-being and (2) i t was im m une because W illiam s was engaged in crim inal activity at the tim e of the arrest. ¶5. In h is order, the trial judge noted he was ruling on a R ule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss and s tated that “f

o r a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to b e sustained the com plaint on i ts f

ace m ust f ail

to state an actionable claim .” He noted t h a t , a t t h i s early stage, questions of f act existed regarding i mmu n i t y . Notably , when W illiam s attem pted to introduce evidence that the charges against him had b een dism issed, the trial court ref used to consider such evidence. He

rem inded counsel that the m o tion being heard was not a m otion f or sum m ary judgm ent. The

1 At the h e aring on the city ’s m otion to dism iss, W illiam s represented that the charges against him

had been dism issed, a f

act the city c o nceded in its brief

. 2Circuit Court of W arren C ounty denied the m otion, f inding the com

plaint suf f i ciently stated a claim to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss. The city appealed.
ISSUE ¶6. The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in ref using to dism iss the

com plaint. 2
ANALYSIS ¶7. A m o tion to dism iss f or f ailure to state a claim under R ule 12(b)(6) raises an issue of law which we review de novo . Poindexter v. S. United F i re Ins. Co. , 838 So. 2d 964, 966 (Miss. 2003). The Court m ust accept the a llegations in the c o m plaint a s true and consider

o n l y w h e t h er any s et of f acts could support W illiam s’s a ction. See Children’s M ed. Grp.,
P.A. v. Phillips , 9 40 So. 2d 931, 934 (Miss. 2006). “[ A ] Rule 12(b)(6) m otion t ests legal suf f i ciency , and in apply ing this rule a m otion to dism iss should not b e granted unless it
appears bey ond a reasonable doubt that the plaintif f will be unable to prove any set of f acts in support of

the claim

. ” Id. ¶8. W i lliam s alleged i n his com plaint that the of

f icers—acting within the scope of their

em ploy m ent a n d i n c o mplete disregard f or h is r ights—grossly and negligent arrested him , causing phy sical a nd psy chologica l d am ages. H e also notif ied the city that his claim was brought pursuant to the MTCA. In addition to f iling a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss, the

2 In its b rief

, th e city f ram es th e i ssu e as “Wh eth er th e C ircu it C o u rt erred in f in d i n g th at V ick sb u rg i s n o t en titled t o im m u n ity u n d er th e [ M T C A ] b ased o n th e f acts p led in th e C o m p lain t.” H o w ev e r, th e co u rt f o u n d o n ly th at th e co m

p lain t w as su f

f i c i e n t t o d ef

eat a 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o tio n to d ism iss f o r f ailu re to state a claim

. T h e co u r t s e p arately f

o u n d th e q u estio n o f

im m u n ity w a s p rem atu re, rath er th an f i n d in g th e city

w a s n o t im m

u n e. 3city p led im m u nity

. 3 On appeal, the parties a r g u e the application of im m u nity , rather than f o c u s ing on the trial court’s d enial of the R ule 12(b)(6) m o tion that i s the subject of t h i s appeal. ¶9. This case is f

act u a l l y s i mi l a r t o t h e C o u rt of Appeals case of Scott v . City of Goodm a n , 997 So. 2d 270 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). Scott s ued the City of G oodm a n when he

was shot f

ollowing a tussle with a police of f i cer. Id. at 273. In his c om plaint, Scott alleged that the of

f icer was “grossly negligent a nd a cted with com plete disregard” f

or Scott. Id. at 276. The c ity argued Scott had f ailed to allege reckless disregard. Id. The Court of Appeals held his pleading suf

f icient. Id. ¶10. To satisf

y the liberal pleading requirem ents of Rule 8 of the M ississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, “the pleadings need o nly ‘provide suf f icient notice to the def

endant of the claim s and grounds’” upon which relief is sought, based on direct or inf e r ential f act allegations. Id. (quoting Estate of Stevens v. Wetzel , 762 So. 2d 293, 295 (Miss. 2000)). Ra t h e r t h a n a “m agic words requirem ent,” Rule 8’s o b j e c t ive is “to avoid civil cases turning on technicalities” while “ giving the opposing party f air notice of the nature and basis or grounds

3 Pursuant to the MTCA,
A governm ental entity a nd its em ploy e e s acting within the course and scope of their em ploy m ent or duties shall not be liable f or any claim :

. . . Arisi n g o ut of any act or om ission of an em ploy ee of a governm ental entity engaged in the perf

orm ance o r execution of duties or activities relating to police or f

ire protection unless the em ploy ee acted in reckless disregard of the saf e ty and well-being o f any person not engaged in crim inal activity at the tim e of injury [ .] Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c) ( Rev. 2012). “This Court considers MTCA i m m unity as an af f irm ative def

ense.” Estate of Grim es v. Warrington , 982 So. 2d 365, 370 (Miss. 2008). 4of the pleader’s claim .” I d. (citations o m itted). The C o urt of Appeals f ound Scott’s pleading of “com plete disregard” suf

f icient to p lace the city on notice of the statute and l egal standard at issue. Id. ¶11. W i lliam s sim i larly alleged the of f icers a cted with com

plete disregard f

or his rights, thereby injuring him

. Consistent with the Scott holding, we f ind that W illiam s’s pleading was suf f i cient under R

u l e 8 ’ s l i b e r a l p l eading standard. A ccepting the allegations in the com plaint as true, the trial court did not err in f inding W illiam s suf

f i ciently stated a claim

against the city

. CONCLUSION ¶12. Because i t cannot be said bey ond doubt that W illiam s w ill be u nable to prove any set of f acts in support of his claim , we af f irm the W arren County Circuit Court’s denial of the city ’s Rule 12(b)(6) m o tion to dism iss and rem and the case to the trial court f or f urther proceedings. ¶13. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. WALLER, C.J., D I C K

I N S O N , P . J . , L A M A R , KITCHENS, K ING, COLEMAN, MAX W ELL AND BEAM, JJ., CONCUR

5