Opinion
Civil Action 3:23-CV-542-KHJ-MTP
12-04-2023
H.M., a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, Jessica Morgan PLAINTIFF v. SMITH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
KRISTI H. JOHNSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff H.M.'s [16] Motion for Default Judgment. The Court denies the motion without prejudice.
I. Background
This case arises from a police officer's alleged child exploitation.
Plaintiff H.M., a child, was in mental distress one night in 2021. See Compl. [1] ¶¶ 9, 21. Defendant Lybriant Clark, who was then a Smith County Sheriff's Deputy, arrived at H.M.'s home in Taylorsville. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Clark took H.M. into custody, placing her in his police car. Id. ¶ 9. The two then set out for the juvenile detention center in Hattiesburg. Id. ¶ 10.
According to the Complaint, Clark made that long drive longer, taking an indirect route that H.M. did not recognize. Id. ¶ 11. Clark then “began to discuss sexually explicit content and activity.” Id. ¶ 12. After that, Clark “showed pornographic imagery” to H.M. Id. Clark then repeatedly propositioned the child in his custody, “attempting to entice, induce, persuade, seduce, solicit, advise, coerce, or order [her] to engage in sexually explicit conduct.” Id. ¶¶ 13-15. H.M. refused his advances. Id. ¶ 16. Clark threatened her, attempting to dissuade her from telling anyone about his advances and misconduct. Id.
Smith County fired Clark, and Forrest County prosecuted him for child exploitation. Id. ¶ 19. Clark pleaded guilty. Id. ¶ 20.
This suit followed. H.M. sued Clark, Smith County, Sheriff Joel Houston, and 10 unknown Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 5-8. The Complaint raises 11 claims-six under federal law and five under state law. See id. ¶¶ 25-43. Multiple counts allege that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy. See id. ¶¶ 25, 28-29, 40. And the Complaint alleges that Defendants are “jointly and severally liable” for unspecified damages. See id. ¶¶ 33, 42; id. at 12-13 (Request for Relief).
Through an agreed order, the Court dismissed the Complaint's official-capacity claims against Clark as “duplicative of those asserted against Smith County.” [13] at 1.
H.M. timely served Defendants-including Clark, who is now incarcerated. See [3]; [4]; [5]. Smith County and Houston filed an answer. [6]. Clark did not. So the Clerk entered default against him. [12]. H.M. then moved for a default judgment against Clark. [16]. Counsel attached an affidavit, reiterating that Defendants are “jointly and severally” liable for unspecified damages. [17] ¶ 7.
II. Analysis
The Court may not yet enter a default judgment against Clark.
“Even when a defendant is in default, a plaintiff is not ‘entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right.'” Escalante v. Lidge, 34 F.4th 486, 492 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). “When a case involves multiple defendants, courts may not grant default judgment against one defendant if doing so would conflict with the position taken by another defendant.” Id. at 495 (citing Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 552 (1872)); see also, e.g., Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Arnoult, No. 99-CV-2411, 2002 WL 32856, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 9, 2002) (citing 10A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2690 (3d ed. 1998)). “When joint and several liability is at issue, default judgment against one, but not all, potentially liable defendants is not appropriate.” Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Moore, No. 3:13-CV-177, 2014 WL 1400171, at *2 (S.D.Miss. Apr. 9, 2014).
Granting a default judgment against Clark would conflict with Smith County and Houston's position. Smith County and Houston deny most of the Complaint's factual allegations and deny liability for all 11 claims. See [6] ¶¶ 1-3, 5-6, 8-19, 21-46. Because multiple Defendants “remain[] to contest” H.M.'s claims, Escalante and Frow preclude granting a default judgment against Clark. Escalante, 34 F.4th at 495. H.M. may reassert her motion after “the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” Arnoult, 2002 WL 32856, at *2. For now, Clark remains in default while this case proceeds. See Frow, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) at 554.
III. Conclusion
The Court has considered all arguments. Those not addressed would not have changed the outcome. For the stated reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff H.M.'s [16] Motion for Default Judgment.
SO ORDERED.