Spencer v. City of Jackson, Miss.

3 Citing cases

  1. Mahoney v. City of Jackson Officer Kutenia Brooks

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07CV173 DPJ-JCS (S.D. Miss. Jul. 25, 2008)   Cited 6 times

    Defendants claim the arrest was a discretionary function. Judge Tom S. Lee rejected this argument, along with the police protection argument discussed above, in Spencer v. City of Jackson, 511 F. Supp. 2d 671, 675 (S.D. Miss. 2007) and McGregory v. City of Jackson, 504 F. Supp. 2d 143, 147 (S.D. Miss. 2007). In Spencer, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for excessive force, false arrest, and false imprisonment, among other things.

  2. Lewis v. City of Jackson

    CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-53-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss. Jan. 24, 2014)

    Accepting the facts alleged by Plaintiff as true, Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing how Nash's conduct rose to the level of reckless disregard to Plaintiff's safety and well-being, as required in order to hold the City liable under the MTCA in this suit. See Spencer v. City of Jackson, Miss., 511 F. Supp. 2d 671, 674-75 (S.D. Miss. 2007) (City or its employees "acting in the course and scope of employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim: . . . [a]rising out of any act or omission of an employee of a governmental entity engaged in the performance or execution of duties or activities relating to police or fire protection unless the employee acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well being of any person not engaged in criminal activity at the time of injury." (citing Miss. Code Ann. ยง 11-46-9(1)(c) (emphasis added))); see also Craddock v. Hicks, 314 F. Supp. 2d 648, 654 (N.D. Miss. 2003).

  3. Thomas v. Prevou

    CIVIL ACTION # 1:05cv707-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2008)   Cited 6 times

    This district has previously found sovereign immunity waived, and the exception under 11-46-1 inapplicable, when an officer uses excessive force to make an improper arrest. See Spencer v. City of Jackson, Miss., 511 F. Supp. 2d 671, 675 (S.D. Miss. 2007) (finding plaintiff stated a claim for reckless disregard for plaintiff's safety and well-being when police used excessive force in making an improper arrest). The Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Officer Prevou recklessly disregarded the rights of Thomas in making the arrest, and whether Thomas was engaged in criminal activity when the arrest was made. It remains "improper for the district court to `resolve factual disputes by weighing conflicting evidence . . . since it is the province of the jury to assess the probative value of evidence.'"