H.M. v. Smith County, Mississippi ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION H.M., a minor, by and through her mother PLAINTIFF and next friend, Jessica Morgan V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-542-KHJ-MTP SMITH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER 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. Compl. [1] ¶¶ 9, 21. Defendant Lybriant Clark, who was then a Smith County Sheriff’s Deputy, arrived at H.M.’s home in Taylorsville. ¶¶ 9−10. Clark took H.M. into custody, placing her in his police car. ¶ 9. The two then set out for the juvenile detention center in Hattiesburg. ¶ 10. According to the Complaint, Clark made that long drive longer, taking an indirect route that H.M. did not recognize. ¶ 11. Clark then “began to discuss sexually explicit content and activity.” ¶ 12. After that, Clark “showed pornographic imagery” to H.M. 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.” ¶¶ 13−15. H.M. refused his advances. ¶ 16. Clark threatened her, attempting to dissuade her from telling anyone about his advances and misconduct. Smith County fired Clark, and Forrest County prosecuted him for child exploitation. ¶ 19. Clark pleaded guilty. ¶ 20. This suit followed. H.M. sued Clark, Smith County, Sheriff Joel Houston, and 10 unknown Defendants. ¶¶ 5−8.1 The Complaint raises 11 claims—six under federal law and five under state law. ¶¶ 25−43. Multiple counts allege that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy. ¶¶ 25, 28−29, 40. And the Complaint alleges that Defendants are “jointly and severally liable” for unspecified damages. ¶¶ 33, 42; at 12−13 (Request for Relief). H.M. timely served Defendants—including Clark, who is now incarcerated. [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.’” , 34 F.4th 486, 492 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting , 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). “When a case involves multiple defendants, courts may not grant default judgment against 1 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. one defendant if doing so would conflict with the position taken by another defendant.” at 495 (citing , 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 552 (1872)); , , No. 99-CV-2411, 2002 WL 32856, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 9, 2002) (citing 10A Charles Alan Wright et al., § 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.” , 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. [6] ¶¶ 1−3, 5−6, 8−19, 21−46. Because multiple Defendants “remain[] to contest” H.M.’s claims, and preclude granting a default judgment against Clark. , 34 F.4th at 495. H.M. may reassert her motion after “the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” , 2002 WL 32856, at *2. For now, Clark remains in default while this case proceeds. , 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, this 4th day of December, 2023. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE