Jarvis v. Hogan or Holden

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

VIRGIL L. JARVIS PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-269-DPJ-ASH

WARDEN HOGAN OR HOLDER, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) [15], addressing pro se Plaintiff Virgil L. Jarvis’s motion to amend the Complaint [13]. Report and Recommendation. Judge Harris recommends (1) denying Jarvis’s request to add the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) as a defendant and (2) granting his request for a jury trial. Jarvis responded to the R&R by filing a “Motion To Object and Correct Motion To Amend [13] to Add Proper Defendants.” Obj. [16] at 1. The docketing clerk docketed the submission as an “objection,” but in it, Jarvis concedes that MDOC would not be a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. That’s true. As an arm of the state, MDOC is entitled to sovereign immunity. Ladner v. Leamon, No. 2:12CV131-KS-MTP, 2012 WL 4507904, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2012) (dismissing § 1983 claim against MDOC). “Because Plaintiff cannot maintain this civil action against MDOC, his amendment is futile.” R&R [15] at 3. The Court adopts the unopposed R&R, denies leave to add MDOC as a defendant, and grants the request for a jury trial. Leave to Amend. Rather than filing an objection, it is more likely Jarvis intended to file a new motion seeking leave to amend. Recognizing the error in his original motion to amend, Jarvis pivots in his response to the R&R, asking to amend his Complaint to “add proper Defendants.” Obj. [16] at 1. Specifically, he “request[s] to amend to add Defendants Commissioner Burl Cain and Superintendent Brand Huffman based on respondeat superior, do [sic] to the fact they approved or implemented the policy of the M.D.O.C. Administrative Remedy Program.” Id. at 2.

Even if the Court construed the filing as a motion to amend, that request violates Local Uniform Civil Rule 15, under which “a proposed amended pleading must be an exhibit to a motion for leave to file the pleading.” L.U. Civ. R. 15. Thus, Jarvis must file a new motion and attach a proposed amended complaint as an exhibit to that motion. If he does file a new motion seeking leave to amend, the Court notes that the limited facts stated in his present motion [16] would fail to state a § 1983 claim because there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Jarvis must state specific facts demonstrating how these officers violated his constitutional rights. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing

Bell Alt. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Conclusory” means “[e]xpressing a factual inference without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), quoted in Favela v. Collier, 91 F.4th 1210, 1213 (5th Cir. 2024). The request to add new defendants [16] is denied. Plaintiff is instructed to follow this Court’s procedural rules if he again seeks leave to amend the Complaint. IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [15] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. Plaintiff’s motion to amend [13] is granted as to his request for a jury trial and denied as to his request to add MDOC. To the extent his Objection [16] could be construed as a motion to amend, it is likewise denied. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 9th day of September, 2025.

s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE