Court Opinion

ID: 9393029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 00:00:30.153613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.461194
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60885        Document: 00516742056             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                     May 8, 2023
                                       No. 21-60885                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   Bruce Ellis, doing business as Delta Cinema; Willie Ellis,
   doing business as Delta Cinema,

                                                                  Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                            versus

   Clarksdale Public Utilities; Clarksdale Public Works;
   City of Clarksdale,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 4:20-CV-32
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Bruce and Willie Ellis (“Plaintiffs”), doing business as Delta Cinema,
   filed a pro se § 1983 lawsuit against the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi,
   Clarksdale Public Utilities, and Clarksdale Public Works (“Defendants”).
   Plaintiffs asserted a Fifth Amendment inverse condemnation claim, alleging
   that Defendants’ transport of raw sewage and storm water across their
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60885         Document: 00516742056             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                                          No. 21-60885

   private property caused damage for which they were not justly compensated.
   On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s rulings on several motions,
   along with its grant of summary judgment to Defendants. We AFFIRM.
                                                I
          The parties dispute the facts that led to this litigation. In their
   complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ operation and repair of the
   City’s sanitary sewer and storm water drainage system created a 17-foot hole
   under their business, Delta Cinema, causing damage such as “mold, rot, rust,
   decay, and erosion of soils.” Plaintiffs sued Defendants under 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 for monetary damages, arguing that Defendants’ actions constituted
   a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Defendants assert that the only work
   performed on the property was the lining of piping that ran under the Delta
   Cinema and the subsequent testing of the piping. Defendants also contend,
   through their expert witness, that “there is no action or inaction by
   [Defendants] . . . that would explain any of the detrimental effects to the
   [P]laintiffs’ property alleged in their complaint.”
          The record below contains a multitude of motions, mostly from
   Plaintiffs. Before engaging in substantive discovery, Plaintiffs moved for
   summary judgment. One week later, they filed a supplemental motion for
   summary judgment, which included twenty photos without any explanation
   of what they depict. 1 The district court denied both motions on the basis that
   Plaintiffs failed to establish municipal liability.
          Due to the technical nature of the case, Defendants jointly designated
   engineer Blake Mendrop as an expert witness. Plaintiffs, however, failed to
   properly designate any expert witnesses or produce any expert reports before

          _____________________
          1
              The images appear to depict piping and holes, presumably near the Delta Cinema.

                                                2
Case: 21-60885        Document: 00516742056             Page: 3      Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                                        No. 21-60885

   the deadline set by the court’s scheduling order. After the deadline passed,
   Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion to exclude Defendants’ expert.
           Relying on the expert testimony of Blake Mendrop, Clarksdale Public
   Utilities filed a motion for summary judgment, which was joined by the City
   of Clarksdale. The City of Clarksdale and Clarksdale Public Works filed their
   own motion for summary judgment, submitting in support an affidavit from
   Arch Corley, the City Engineer for the City of Clarksdale.
           Approximately three weeks after the court’s deadline to file
   dispositive motions, Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
   along with a supplemental motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court
   struck both as untimely.
           With a plethora of motions before it, the court entered a
   Memorandum Opinion which denied all the evidentiary motions, including
   Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion. The court also granted Defendants’ summary
   judgment motions, reasoning that Plaintiffs failed to create a factual dispute
   by neglecting to refute the opinions of Defendants’ experts that Defendants
   did not cause the alleged damage. Plaintiffs timely appealed.
           Liberally construing their appellate brief, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
   519, 520 (1972), Plaintiffs argue that: (1) the district court abused its
   discretion by striking Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings based
   on timeliness; (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying
   Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion based on timeliness; and (3) the district court
   erred by denying Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and granting
   summary judgment to Defendants. 2

           _____________________
           2
            In addition to the arguments listed, Plaintiffs repeatedly and confusingly argue
   that Defendants are subject to a “strict liability” standard. We do not address this

                                              3
Case: 21-60885         Document: 00516742056              Page: 4       Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                                          No. 21-60885

                                                II
            We review the district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of timeliness
   under an abuse of discretion standard. See Argo v. Woods, 399 F. App’x 1, 2–
   3 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); e.g., accord United States v. Dabney, 42 F.4th
   984, 989 (8th Cir. 2022); United States v. Soto, 794 F.3d 635, 655 (6th Cir.
   2015); United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir. 1990). We also
   “review the admission of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion.”
   Carlson v. Bioremedi Therapeutic Sys., Inc., 822 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 2016).
            “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all
   evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all
   reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Pierce v. Dep’t of the Air Force,
   512 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 2007). “Summary judgment is proper only if the
   pleadings and record materials reveal no genuine issue as to any material
   fact.” Renwick v. PNK Lake Charles, L.L.C., 901 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir.
   2018).
                                               III
                                                A
            First, the untimely motions.
            To assist in the speedy and efficient resolution of cases, Federal Rule
   of Civil Procedure 16(b) requires courts to enter a scheduling order that
   “limits the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete
   discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once in place,
   the scheduling order may only be modified “for good cause and with the

            _____________________
   argument because it does not fit within the theory of liability Plaintiffs set forth in their
   complaint.

                                                4
Case: 21-60885        Document: 00516742056              Page: 5      Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                                         No. 21-60885

   judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 3 “Consistent with the
   authority vested in the trial court by rule 16, our court gives the trial court
   ‘broad discretion to preserve the integrity of the [scheduling order].’”
   Geiserman v. Macdonald, 893 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1990).
           Here, Plaintiffs filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the
   pleadings roughly three weeks after the deadline set by the court’s scheduling
   order. And they filed their Daubert motion nearly two weeks after the
   deadline. They neither sought nor received leave from the court to file either
   motion after the deadline. Nor did they demonstrate good cause.
           The district court had already displayed great patience and flexibility
   with Plaintiffs by, for example, extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to serve
   the City and declining to strike unauthorized surreplies. We hold that it was
   within the sound discretion of the district court to reject Plaintiffs’ untimely
   motions.
                                               B
           We turn to Plaintiffs’ argument that the district court erred by
   denying their motions for summary judgment and granting summary
   judgment to Defendants.
           “We give pro se briefs a liberal construction.” Brown v. Sudduth, 675
   F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 2012). But even though “this court applies less
   stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented
   by counsel and liberally construes the briefs of pro se litigants, a pro se
   appellant still must actually argue something that is susceptible of liberal
   construction.” Toole v. Peak, 361 F. App’x 621, 621 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing
           _____________________
           3
            This rule applies to motions filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and
   evidentiary motions alike. See Argo, 399 F. App’x at 3; Reliance Ins. Co. v. La. Land &
   Exploration Co., 110 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997).

                                               5
Case: 21-60885        Document: 00516742056          Page: 6    Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                                      No. 21-60885

   Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995)). Here, no matter how
   liberally we construe Plaintiffs’ filings on appeal and below, there are no
   reasonable inferences that can be drawn that lead to the conclusion that
   Plaintiffs have created a factual dispute regarding their Fifth Amendment
   claim.
            Municipalities and other local governments may be sued under § 1983
   when official policies are in clear violation of constitutional rights. See Monell
   v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 663 (1978). “To establish municipal
   liability pursuant to § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements: a
   policymaker; an official policy; and a violation of constitutional rights
   whose ‘moving force’ is the policy or custom.” Shumpert v. City of Tupelo,
   905 F.3d 310, 316 (5th Cir. 2018).
            Both on appeal and below, Plaintiffs have failed to identify any of these
   three required elements. First, Plaintiffs failed to identify officials or
   governmental bodies “who speak with final policymaking authority for the
   local governmental actor concerning the action alleged to have caused the
   particular constitutional or statutory violation at issue.” Bolton v. City of
   Dallas, 541 F.3d 545, 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
   At one point in the litigation, Plaintiffs argued that the EPA is the
   policymaker, but critically, they failed to identify a municipal policymaker as
   required by law.
            Second, Plaintiffs identified no official policy. Beyond one conclusory
   statement in their opening brief about Defendants’ “failure to adequately
   train” employees, Plaintiffs have completely neglected to engage with this
   element of municipal liability.
            Finally, as to causation, Plaintiffs did not produce any evidence to
   refute Defendants’ experts’ opinions and show that damages to the Delta
   Cinema were caused by Defendants, let alone an official custom or policy of

                                            6
Case: 21-60885        Document: 00516742056             Page: 7      Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                                        No. 21-60885

   Defendants. Plaintiffs have thus failed to create a factual dispute on the issue
   of municipal liability. Accordingly, the district court properly denied
   Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granted summary judgment
   to Defendants. 4
           AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           4
              Plaintiffs also challenge the district court’s acceptance of Clarksdale Public
   Utilities motion for summary judgment, which they contend was filed “47 days after the
   close of all discovery.” But this argument lacks a factual basis. The dispositive motion
   deadline set by the operative scheduling order was almost two months after Clarksdale
   Public Utilities moved for summary judgment.

                                              7