Jane Doe v. State of Mississippi ( 2001 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CA-00135-SCT
JANE DOE
v.
STATE EX REL. THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND THE STATE PAROLE
BOARD
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/26/2001
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. R. KENNETH COLEMAN
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAFAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: RON L. WOODRUFF
JIM WAIDE
BRENT HAZZARD
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: LAWRENCE LEE LITTLE
DION JEFFERY SHANLEY
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 11/06/2003
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE SMITH, P.J., WALLER AND COBB, JJ.
WALLER, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. The Motion to Withdraw Opinion and Substitute New Opinion, for Instructions to the Clerk of the
Court and for Related Relief is granted, the original opinion issued herein is withdrawn, and this opinion is
substituted in its place.
¶2. Jane Doe sued the State of Mississippi, acting through the Mississippi Department of Corrections
and the State Parole Board, under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1to -23 (Rev. 2002), for damages sustained when she was raped by Michael M. Adams, a parolee
accepted into Mississippi for supervision from the Illinois Department of Corrections. The Lafayette
County Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of the State. Doe appeals, arguing that her notice
of claim was filed prior to the expiration of the MTCA's one-year statute of limitations and that there can
be no discretionary immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d) for the State where it improperly
accepted Adams for parole and its parole officers failed to properly supervise Adams.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3. Michael M. Adams's sordid criminal past makes his release by Illinois perplexing and not surprising,
something with which Doe takes great issue. Adams was first accused on September 13, 1990, of stalking
a University of Mississippi student for about one year from September of 1989. On August 21, 1990,
Adams allegedly raped another University of Mississippi student. The Lafayette County Circuit Court
docket indicated that Adams had been bound over to the grand jury; however, he fled Mississippi and was
never tried. The case was subsequently retired to the files on May 13, 1996.
¶4 Adams had fled to Illinois where he was arrested for theft on June 15, 1991, and aggravated assault
on June 25, 1991. On October 26, 1992, he was subsequently sentenced to six years for attempted
robbery and burglary. Also, on October 29, 1992, he was sentenced to fourteen years per count to run
concurrently for one count of home invasion and two counts of attempted aggravated sexual assault.
¶5. The incident leading to the conviction for home invasion and attempted aggravated sexual assault
occurred on October 21, 1991, when Adams forced his way into a woman's apartment and attempted to
sexually assault her. The woman struck Adams in the head with an ashtray causing him to bleed and
thereafter flee the scene. Fingerprint evidence obtained from the scene linked Adams to the incident.
¶6. In reports submitted after each of Adams's two convictions, two assistant state's attorneys from
Cook County, Illinois, recommended that Adams should be incarcerated as long as possible given his
2
propensity for preying on young women. They also recommended that "[a]ny early release would be highly
objectionable."
¶7. Adams was, however, considered for parole in July of 1998. He indicated that he would reside
with his grandmother in Maple Park, Illinois, but she refused to take him into her home because there were
minor girls living with her.
¶8. On July 14, 1998, Adams filed for release to reside with his parents in Etta, Mississippi, and had
secured a job waiting for him upon his return to Mississippi. Initially, the Mississippi Department of
Corrections refused to accept Adams because his transfer request had been sent to the wrong county.
Adams's request was thereafter sent to the correct field office and was accepted by Field Officer Stephen
Smith via a Reply to Compact Investigation Request on September 16, 1998.
¶9. Both Mississippi and Illinois are signatories to the Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee
Supervision. See Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-71 (Rev. 2000). Known as the "Compact," signatories thereto
basically agree that the "receiving state" will assume supervisory responsibilities over parolees and
probationers released from the "sending state." It provides in pertinent part:
The contracting states solemnly agree:
(1) That it shall be competent for the duly constituted judicial and administrative
authorities of a state party to this compact (herein called "sending state"), to permit
any person convicted of an offense within such state and placed on probation or
released on parole to reside in any other state party to this compact (herein called
"receiving state"), while on probation or parole, if
(a) Such person is in fact a resident of or has family residing within the
receiving state and can obtain employment there;
(b) Though not a resident of the receiving state and not having his family
residing there, the receiving state consents to such person being sent there.
Before granting such permission, opportunity shall be granted to the receiving state
to investigate the home and prospective employment of such person.
A resident of the receiving state, within the meaning of this section, is one who has
been an actual inhabitant of such state continuously for more than one (1) year prior to his
coming to the sending state and has not resided within the sending state more than six (6)
3
continuous months immediately preceding the commission of the offense for which he has
been convicted.
(2) That each receiving state will assume the duties of visitation of and supervision
over probationers or parolees of any sending state and in the exercise of those
duties will be governed by the same standards that prevail for its own probationers
and parolees.
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-71 (Rev. 2000).
¶10. Adams was released from the Illinois prison system on October 11, 1998, with instructions to
report to MDOC within 72 hours. The reporting instructions specifically stated that any failure to comply
would be considered a violation of his release agreement and a warrant could be issued for Adams's arrest.
¶11. It was not until December 16, 1998, nearly two months after Adams had been released from Illinois
custody that he reported to Field Officer Smith in Mississippi. Smith never attempted to revoke Adams's
parole or seek to have a warrant issued for his arrest. Instead, in reviewing Adams's paperwork, Smith
classed Adams as needing "intensive supervision" which consisted of at least one home visit, one office visit,
and two "collateral" visits1 per month. Adams reported for his first office visit on January 20, 1999. Six
days later on January 26, 1999, he raped Doe at her Oxford home and was subsequently indicted, tried,
and convicted of rape.
¶12. Doe filed a notice of claim with the Attorney General of Mississippi pursuant to the MTCA on
January 25, 2000, one day shy of the one-year statute of limitations. She subsequently filed suit against the
State of Mississippi, acting through the Mississippi Department of Corrections and the State Parole Board
on May 1, 2000, within 95 days of her filing of her notice of claim. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11.
1
A "collateral contact" or collateral visit includes "[a]ll contact not classified as personal to
include contact with the person(s) with whom the offender resides, i.e. spouse, parents, relatives,
landlord; and contact with any other person who has contact with the offender, i.e. employer, neighbor,
minister, law enforcement personnel, teacher." MDOC Standard Operating Procedure 37.02.01 at 1.
4
¶13. In her complaint, Doe alleged the willful and gross negligence of the State Parole Board and
MDOC in receiving Adams for supervision from Illinois on the basis that they should have ascertained
Adams's numerous prior convictions, his previous indictment in Lafayette County, and the fact that he could
very well sexually assault another woman in the future. She also alleged that the State negligently
supervised Adams thereby permitting him to rape her.
¶14. The State answered, claiming, inter alia, immunity under the MTCA on the premise that the State
was engaged in a discretionary function. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(d). The State later amended
its answer to include a statute of limitations defense.
¶15. The State moved for summary judgment and in support thereof argued that Doe's claim was barred
by the one-year statute of limitations because, according to the State, the "tortious, wrongful or otherwise
actionable conduct" of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11(3) occurred at the latest on December 16, 1998, the
date MDOC accepted Adams for supervision, and not January 26, 1999, the date Doe was raped. The
discretionary function argument was again presented.
¶16. The Lafayette County Circuit Court granted the State's motion for summary judgment on December
26, 2001, without stating any reasons. Doe appeals and argues her claim should not have been dismissed
as being time-barred under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11 or on the basis that the State was immune under
the discretionary function exception to liability under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶17. We employ the de novo standard in reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment. O'Neal
Steel, Inc. v. Millette, 797 So. 2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2001). In conducting the de novo review, we look
at all evidentiary matters before us, including admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories,
depositions, and affidavits. Lee v. Golden Triangle Planning & Dev. Dist., Inc., 797 So. 2d 845,
5
847 (Miss. 2001) (citing Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Berry, 669 So. 2d 56, 70 (Miss. 1996)). This
evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion for summary
judgment has been made. Leslie v. City of Biloxi, 758 So. 2d 430, 431 (Miss. 2000).
DISCUSSION
I. WHETHER THE STATE IS IMMUNE OR SUBJECT TO
LIABILITY.
¶18. As a basis for establishing liability on the part of the state, Doe argues both negligent acceptance
and supervision. This requires an analysis of whether a private right of action exists and, if so, whether Doe
has stated a justiciable claim.
A. Whether the Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee
Supervision Creates a Private Right of Action.
¶19. The general rule for the existence of a private right of action under a statute is that the party claiming
the right of action must establish a legislative intent, express or implied, to impose liability for violations of
that statute. See Blockbuster, Inc. v. White, 819 So. 2d 43, 44 (Ala. 2001); Gerrity Oil & Gas
Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913, 923 (Colo. 1997); Nichols v. Kan. Political Action Comm., 11
P.3d 1134, 1143 (Kan. 2000); Charlton v. Town of Oxford, 774 A.2d 366, 372 (Me. 2001);
Walker v. Chouteau Lime Co., 849 P.2d 1085, 1086 (Okla. 1993). We have also found no private
right of action for violations of various statutes and regulations. See, e.g., Moore ex rel. Moore v.
Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport, 825 So. 2d 658, 665-66 (Miss. 2002) (finding violation of State Board of
Pharmacy's internal regulations did not create a separate cause of action); Allyn v. Wortman, 725 So.
2d 94, 102 (Miss. 1998) (finding Miss. Code Ann. § 75-71-501, which prohibits fraud or deceit in
connection with the offer, sale or purchase of securities did not create private right of action).
6
¶20. For example, the above reasoning was applied in Hodgson v. Mississippi Department of
Corrections, 963 F. Supp. 776 (E.D. Wis. 1997), where the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin addressed the issue of whether the Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision
created a private right of action in favor of a plaintiff. Albert Hodgson sued the Mississippi Department
of Corrections, its commissioner, and its Compact administrator in Wisconsin federal court for the wrongful
death of his daughter Monique at the hands of a Mississippi parolee who was allegedly improperly
relocated to Wisconsin under the Compact. 963 F. Supp. at 781.
¶21. The court noted that the wrongful death claim arose on August 4, 1992, the day Monique was
murdered. Id. at 788. On the issue of whether Hodgson actually had a private right of action under the
Compact, the court held:
To determine whether a statute creates a private right of action in favor of a
particular plaintiff, a court must analyze the statute itself and any relevant legislative history.
The focal point is the legislative body's intent in enacting the statute. Unless the legislative
intent can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some
other source, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not
exist.
In this case, nothing points in favor of implying a private right of action
for Hodgson. The Uniform Act [for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision] itself contains no
statement of purpose or mention of the rights of the general public or potential victims of
parolees or probationers who might relocate under the Act's provisions. At the same time,
the Plaintiff has failed to point to any record of legislative history which shows that the
lawmakers intended to benefit persons such as Hodgson or his daughter.
Id. at 791 (citations omitted & emphasis added). We likewise find no implied private right of action. The
Compact does not create a private right of action; therefore, Doe's negligent acceptance claim must fail
absent violation of a specific statutory or regulatory directive.
B. Whether the State Has Violated Statutes or Regulations For
Which the State Could Be Held Liable.
7
¶22. Doe contends that her action was based upon violations of statutes and not the exercise of
discretionary duties for which the State would be immune. She relies on our opinion in Stewart ex rel.
Womack v. City of Jackson, 804 So. 2d 1041 (Miss. 2002), for the proposition that when one violates
clear duties in a statute or regulation, the act is ministerial and not discretionary.
¶23. The MTCA provides for governmental immunity in certain enumerated instances. Miss. Code Ann.
§ 11-46-9(1) provides:
A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their
employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim:
(d) Based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise a discretionary
function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether
or not the discretion be abused.
Whether governmental conduct is discretionary requires a two-prong analysis: "(1) whether the activity
involved an element of choice or judgment; and if so, (2) whether the choice or judgment in supervision
involves social, economic or political policy alternatives." Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water
Supply Dist., 793 So. 2d 584, 588 (Miss. 2001) (citing Jones v. Miss. Dep't of Transp., 744 So.
2d 256, 260 (Miss. 1999)). See also Pearl Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Groner, 784 So. 2d 911, 914 (Miss.
2001); Brewer v. Burdette, 768 So. 2d 920, 922 (Miss. 2000). Conversely, governmental conduct is
ministerial if imposed by law, and its performance is not dependent on the employee's judgment. Leflore
County v. Givens, 754 So. 2d 1223, 1226 (Miss. 2000) (citing L.W. v. McComb Separate Mun.
Sch. Dist., 754 So. 2d 1136, 1141 (Miss. 1999); Mohundro v. Alcorn County, 675 So. 2d 848, 853
(Miss. 1996)). Our inquiry thus turns on whether the State's actions in accepting Adams for parole or in
failing to supervise him while in Mississippi violates any specific duties required by law. Also, when a
8
parolee is sent from a sending state to a receiving state, that parolee is subject to the rules and regulations
of the receiving state governing supervision. Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-71(2).
1. Whether the State Violated Statutory Provisions in Its
Acceptance of Adams.
¶24. Doe asserts two statutory violations by the State in its acceptance of Adams: first, Adams did not
meet the six-month residency requirement under the Compact and, second, the State improperly accepted
Adams for supervision when he was ineligible for parole in Illinois.
¶25. Mississippi's obligation to receive Adams was based upon a determination that Adams was eligible
for parole in Illinois. See Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-71(1). The decision to grant or deny parole is in the
discretion of the Parole Board and later MDOC. See Moore v. Ruth, 556 So. 2d 1059, 1061 (Miss.
1990); Haynes v. State, 811 So. 2d 283, 285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
¶26. Doe charges that Adams was ineligible to be received in Mississippi on parole because he had not
been a resident of Mississippi for the six-month period immediately preceding the rape. We find such an
analysis unnecessary. Under Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-71(1), a probationer or parolee can be sent from
the sending state to the receiving state if "(a) Such person is in fact a resident of or has his family residing
within the receiving state and can obtain employment there. . . ." (emphasis added). A "resident of the
receiving state" is
one who has been an actual inhabitant of such state continuously for more than one (1)
year prior to his coming to the sending state and has not resided within the sending state
more than six (6) continuous months immediately preceding the commissions of the offense
for which he has been convicted.
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-71(1). It matters not whether Adams is actually a "resident of the receiving state"
which would be Mississippi because the use of the conjunction "or" in subsection (a) as quoted above
allows a parolee to be sent to the receiving state if such person is a resident or he has family in the receiving
9
state. Adams clearly fell under the latter classification, for his parents are residents of Etta and he indicated
he had a job waiting for him.
¶27. Doe's other alleged statutory violation is that Mississippi could not have accepted Adams for
supervision because he was ineligible for parole in Illinois. She contends that when Illinois refused to parole
Adams because his grandmother declined to take him into her home because minor girls resided with her,
Adams was ergo ineligible for parole in Illinois. We disagree with Doe's characterization of Adams's
grandmother's refusal to take him in as conclusive proof that he was denied parole in Illinois. The document
indicating this "denial" was an IDOC document listing Adams's parole plans. Also included as possible
host/sponsors were Adams's parents in Etta and his aunt in Chicago. Adams's parents' willingness to take
him in apparently satisfied the Illinois authorities as he was paroled in Illinois and ordered to report for
supervision in Mississippi under the Compact. Also, Smith stated that he verified Adams's residence and
employment in Mississippi prior to responding to Illinois' request. The Parole or Mandatory Supervised
Release Agreement entered into between Adams and the Illinois Prisoner Review Board further recites the
fact that Adams was released on parole in Illinois.2 The State's acceptance of Adams was proper and,
indeed, was mandatory under the Compact.
2. Whether the State Violated Statutory Provisions in
the Supervision of Adams.
2
The Preamble to the agreement stated:
This document constitutes an agreement governing persons who have been granted
parole by the Illinois Prisoner Review Board or otherwise released under supervision, and
defines the terms by which the undersigned is conditionally released from confinement. The
rules of conduct follow. If such rules are violated, parole or mandatory supervised release
m a y be revoked under the rules and regulations promulgated by the Prisoner Review
Board.
(emphasis added).
10
¶28. Doe asserts that the State should have initiated actions to send Adams back to Illinois upon his
failure to report timely and that the State's failure to supervise Adams once he did report was causally
related to the rape.
¶29. Doe contends that Mississippi should have initiated actions to send Adams back to Illinois because
of his failure to report within 72 hours of his release from Illinois. The only Mississippi statutory or
regulatory authorities concerning the handling of a parolee's failure to contact a Field Officer are MDOC
Standard Operating Procedure 37.01.01 which states, "If the request to supervise an out of state offender
is accepted, however, the offender does not make contact with the accepting Field Officer within one
hundred twenty (120) days of the initial acceptance date, the Interstate Compact Office shall be notified
in writing." and MDOC Standard Operating Procedure 37.02.01which states, "The initial personal contact
between the newly released parolee and the supervising Field Officer should take place as soon as possible,
but no more than three work days after the parolee's release from custody, unless otherwise agreed upon
prior to release." Smith accepted Adams via a Reply to Compact Investigation Request on September 16,
1998, and Adams reported for supervision on December 16, 1998. Adams made contact within the 120-
day window but not within three days. While Smith could have initiated actions to revoke Adams's parole
and sent him back to Illinois for failing to report within 72 hours, there is nothing in the Compact or
applicable MDOC regulations requiring him to do so. There being no statute or regulation the violation
of which can be considered ministerial, the decision not to revoke Adams's parole is necessarily an exercise
of discretion.3
3
Adams had registered with the Lafayette County Sheriff's Department as a convicted sex
offender.
11
¶30. Doe also asserts the failure to properly supervise Adams once he did report directly contributed
to the eventual rape. Adams reported for supervision to Officer Smith on December 16, 1998, had one
office visit with Officer Stewart on January 20, 1999, and raped Doe on January 26, 1999. Doe argues
that the State violated its own directions regarding supervision because it never conducted one home visit
or two collateral visits in one month. ¶31. Our inquiry thus turns to whether the decision to place
Adams in intensive supervision and the failure to follow that decision are exercises of discretion or positively
imposed by law. Doe argues that applicable state regulations required the State to conduct at least one
home visit of Adams per month.
¶32. While the supervision procedures appear to be ministerial in nature, the Field Officer's
responsibilities to monitor and supervise a parolee should be immune from suit in cases such as this one
where the State had no indication of a specific threat on Adams's part to harm Doe. Doe alleged in her
complaint that MDOC should have known there was probable cause to believe that Adams would again
engage in acts of sexual assault in the future. Such a proposition is not entirely without merit; however,
every person released on probation or parole also committed a crime in the past and, given the arguably
high rates of recidivism, may very well likely commit another crime while free.4
¶33. A well-reasoned explanation of this position can be found in a separate opinion in Taggart v.
State, 822 P.2d 243 (Wash. 1992) (Guy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In Taggart, a
consolidation of two cases, the plaintiffs sued the State of Washington for injuries sustained after they were
brutally assaulted by parolees. 822 P.2d at 244. They claimed that the parole officers assigned to the
4
Mississippi had a total parole population of 1,378 adults in 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
United States Department of Justice, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 538 (2000). Also in
1997, Mississippi had 118 sentenced prisoners admitted to state institutions for parole violations. Id. at
539.
12
parolees who attacked them "failed substantially to perform their supervisory functions." Id. at 252. The
majority held that the parole board was immune but that the parole officers' failures to require a parolee
to submit to drug testing, contacting parolee's friends and employers ("collateral" contact), and failure to
report violations of parole were administrative and supervisory failings falling outside the absolute protection
afforded employees of state agencies. Id. One justice, while concurring with the majority that the parole
board was immune, dissented on the issue of liability of parole officers and made the following public policy
argument:
The same public policy argument applies to parole officers. The parole board
employs the parole officers to implement their administrative decisions. The board will feel
a responsibility to those officers and may not wish to place them in jeopardy by paroling
a person eligible for parole if the officer employed by the board is going to be legally liable
for the parolee's conduct. Thus, opportunities will be lost where parole might be
warranted. Successful parole requires assisting a parolee in making his or her own
decisions and thus allowing some freedom of action. If the parole officer has liability for
the actions of a reoffending parolee, the supervision will not be sufficiently flexible to
accomplish its rehabilitative goal.
Individuals on parole are generally not single offenders. They have been convicted
of multiple felonies, and recidivism is high. To expect complete rehabilitation with no
further offenses is unrealistic. To create liability on the parole officer is to place blame
somewhere and thereby simplify a complicated social problem. The grant of "qualified"
immunity by the majority is illusory and nothing more than a negligence standard wrapped
like a gift box which contains sticks and ashes.
The majority opinion admits that generally one does not have liability for the
criminal acts of a third party unless one "takes charge" over that person. The issue is the
parole officer's control over the parolee's actions. It is a naive fiction to say parole officers
have control over felons who are free on parole. A person who does not have the ability
to control another's conduct should not have liability imposed upon him or her for the
tortious act of that other person.
Id. at 263-64 (citations omitted & emphasis in original). Other courts have likewise arrived at a similar
conclusion by applying the theory that the state owed no duty to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Schmidt v.
HTG, Inc., 961 P.2d 677, 687 (Kan. 1998) (finding no duty owed when parolee raped and killed
coworker); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. State Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 413 So. 2d
131360, 1361-62 (La. Ct. App. 1982) (finding no duty owed to plaintiff when parolee fire damaged plaintiff's
business); Rogers v. S.C. Dep't of Parole & Cmty. Corrections, 464 S.E.2d 330, 332 (S.C. 1995)
(finding no duty to warn victim absent specific threats of harm against victim in case where parolee
murdered victim); Small v. McKennan Hosp., 403 N.W.2d 410, 414 (S.D. 1987) (finding no liability
when parolee raped and murdered victim).
¶34. There is absolutely no indication in the record of Smith's or Stewart's knowledge of a specific intent
by Adams to harm Doe. In fact, the circumstances of the case indicate otherwise. Adams met with Officer
Stewart for an office visit on January 20 and raped Doe on January 26. We find it implausible to believe
that Doe would not have been raped had Adams's parole officer conducted the one home visit and two
collateral visits. For Doe to suggest that the State should have known that Adams could strike again
overlooks the fact that every parolee can and, in many cases, does strike again, since every parolee is by
definition a convicted felon. Holding the State liable for the negligent supervision of parolees would likely
force parole officers to become overly restrictive and overbearing in their supervision and become more
apt to revoke paroles out of fear they could be held liable for the acts of third parties which they have no
reason to believe would occur. Since there is no evidence of a gross, reckless or wanton failure in the
exercise of its statutory duty, i.e., supervising parolees, the State maintains the benefit of a shield of
immunity. See L.W. v. McComb Separate Mun. Sch. Dist., 754 So. 2d at 1142. Also, there is no
sufficient causal connection or element of foreseeability between the alleged violated statutory duty and the
injury sustained. See Brumfield v. Lowe, 744 So. 2d 383, 389 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (finding no
causal connection between defendant police officer's alleged fault in arrest of plaintiff handed over by
hospital personnel after treatment for gunshot wound and later recurring injuries from wound in suit for
failing to provide medical treatment). Doe's negligent supervision claim fails as well.
14
II. WHETHER DOE'S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT
SUPERVISION ACCRUED ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 26, 1999.
¶35. This issue concerns the actual date of the "tortious, wrongful or otherwise actionable conduct" for
statute of limitations purposes. Doe contends that the one-year period did not start running until January
26, 1999, the date she was raped. The State responds that the period started running on either September
16, 1998, the date Adams was initially accepted, or December 16, 1998, the date Adams reported for
supervision.
¶36. The MTCA provides for a one-year statute of limitations:
All actions brought under the provisions of this chapter shall be commenced within one
(1) year next after the date of the tortious, wrongful or otherwise actionable
conduct on which the liability phase of the action is based, and not after;
provided however, that the filing of a notice of claim as required by subsection (1) of this
section shall serve to toll the statute of limitations for a period of ninety-five days from the
date the chief executive officer of the state agency receives the notice of claim. . . .
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11(3) (emphasis added). Thus, our inquiry concerns whether the "tortious,
wrongful or otherwise actionable conduct" took place on September 16, 1998, or December 16, 1998,
as the State contends or January 26, 1999, as Doe contends.
¶37. Doe's negligent supervision claim is based on the State's alleged negligence in supervising Adams
after he reported to Field Officer Smith. This claim is independent of the negligent acceptance claim which
was based upon the provisions of the Compact. She could not have possibly filed suit on her negligent
supervision claim within one year of MDOC's acceptance of Adams or his actual reporting for supervision
since she did not sustain damages as the result of any "tortious, wrongful or otherwise actionable conduct"
until she was raped on January 26, 1999. We hold that the one-year window to file a notice of claim did
not begin to run until January 26, 1999, the day Doe was raped. Doe's notice of claim and complaint,
insofar as the negligent supervision claim is concerned, were filed timely.
15
CONCLUSION
¶38. We sympathize with Doe for the great trauma that she suffered. However, in the absence of a
statutory violation that can be causally linked to the rape or a specific threat on the part of a parolee to harm
another, we will not impose liability. As such, the Lafayette County Circuit Court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the State of Mississippi, acting through the Mississippi Department of Corrections and
the State Parole Board, is affirmed.
¶39. AFFIRMED.
PITTMAN, C.J., SMITH, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ.,
CONCURS. McRAE, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. COBB AND DIAZ, JJ., NOT
PARTICIPATING.
16