Order Denying Motion To Dismiss

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3
At a glance
Powered by AI
The key takeaways are that the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation suit, discussed the types of immunity that may apply to statements by government officials, and declined to address declaratory relief arguments at this stage of litigation.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim reviews the face of the pleadings alone and must accept all allegations in the complaint as true. The complaint will only be dismissed if there are no facts that would allow the plaintiff to prevail.

The court discusses that government officials have qualified, not absolute, immunity. Immunity also does not extend to fraud, malice, libel, slander, defamation or criminal offenses.

Case: 25CI1:20-cv-00806-EFP Document #: 17 Filed: 09/02/2022 Page 1 of 3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT


OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

JAMES M. THOMAS PLAINTIFF

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-cv-00806-EFP

SHAD WHITE,
STATE AUDITOR OF MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS


THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No.

4] filed by Defendant, Shad White, on January 26, 2021. The Court, having considered oral

arguments from February 8, 2022, reviewed the pleadings and other papers, and being otherwise

fully advised in the premises, finds that the motion should be denied.

FACTS
On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff, James Thomas, filed a defamation suit against Defendant,

Shad White, individually and in his official capacity as the State Auditor of Mississippi. [Docket

Item 2.] In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts defamtion per se and sets forth a detailed timeline of

events alleging that Defendant White made repeated, blatantly false statements about Plaintiff and

his ability and integrity to carry out his employment. Id. Plaintiff, also, included a request for a

declaratory judgment concerning one of Defendant White’s statements. Id.

On January 26, 2021, Defendant filed his Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #4], which

was later noticed and heard on February 8, 2022.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Mississippi Rules

of Civil Procedure challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v.

1
Case: 25CI1:20-cv-00806-EFP Document #: 17 Filed: 09/02/2022 Page 2 of 3

Forrest Gen. Hosp., 34 So. 3d 1171 (Miss. 2010). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

is reviewed on the face of the pleadings alone. Walton v. Walton, 52 So. 3d 468, 471 (Miss. Ct.

App. 2011). In determining whether to dismiss a lawsuit for failure to state a claim, “[t]he

allegations in the complaint must be taken as true, and there must be no set of facts that would

allow the plaintiff to prevail.” Id. (Internal citations omitted.)

OPINION
In his motion to dismiss, defense counsel argued (1) that Shad White’s statements were

privileged under the doctrine of absolute immunity, as at the time he was a state governmental

official and (2) that declaratory judgment is improper in this context and/or is not ripe for

adjudication. Plaintiff opposed both arguments and requested a ruling on his declaratory judgment.

The Court will address both arguments.

I. Immunity
Mississippi law is clear on the type of immunity held by state governmental officials.

[A]n officer of the law has no absolute privilege for any and all comments which he
makes. An absolutely privileged communication is one made in the interest of the
public service or the administration of justice, and in practical effect is limited to
legislative, judicial and military proceedings. The applicable privilege might be
described as qualified.
Krebs v. McNeal, 222 Miss. 560 (Miss. 1955) (emphasis added).
Hence, Shad White is not entitled to absolute immunity for any and all statements which

he makes as a state governmental official. Id. see Staheli v. Smith, 548 So. 2d 1299 (Miss. 1989);

see also McGehee v. DePoyster, 708 So. 2d 77, 81 (Miss. 1998). That blanket theory of immunity

has not been recognized by our courts, nor does it comport with the laws of this state. Id. see MISS.

CODE ANN. 11-46-1 et seq. Further, to the continued detriment of defense’s argument, our courts

2
Case: 25CI1:20-cv-00806-EFP Document #: 17 Filed: 09/02/2022 Page 3 of 3

have stated that immunity does not extend to fraud, malice, libel, slander, defamation or any

criminal offense. Staheli v. Smith, 548 So.2d at 1305.

As a state governmental official, Shad White is entitled to qualified immunity, which

means his repeated and alleged false statements require a level of review by this Court. Notably,

during the hearing, the Court heard arguments on whether Defendant White’s statements might be

classified as an “absolute privileged communication” or put another way, whether his statements

exceeded his qualified privilege. However, addressing said arguments would require the Court to

convert this motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and to rely solely on the

arguments of counsel. The Court declines to do so.

II. Declaratory Relief


For similar reasons as stated above, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument that

declaratory relief is barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity. The Court declines to address the

remaining arguments, as Plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment is not otherwise improper.

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the allegations as stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint are sufficiently pled.

The Court, further, finds that declaratory relief is an available remedy, though premature at this

point in the litigation.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #4] is

hereby DENIED.

2nd of ____________,
SO ORDERED, this the ___day September 2022.

_________________________________
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
HONORABLE E. FAYE PETERSON

You might also like