Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 94-60022
Summary Calendar.
Hattie Ray KING, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ellett DOGAN, etc., et al., Defendants,
Jimmy Dees, etc., Defendants-Appellees.
Sept. 14, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Hattie Ray King appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Jimmy
Dees (Dees), an investigator for the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. Finding no error, we
affirm.
FACTS
King's son, Johnny Wayne King was on trial in state court for sale of a controlled substance.
During the course of that trial, King, her son, and her husband were accused of tampering with the
jury, and a mistrial was declared. After an investigation, all three were indicted for conspiracy,
obstruction of justice, and bribery. During the trial, Dees, who conducted the search of King's
residence, testified that he found photocopies of a jury list under the seat of a truck belonging to
King's husband. Following a four day trial, the jury found King guilty of conspiracy, her son guilty
of conspiracy and bribery, and her husband guilty of conspiracy, bribery, and obstruction of justice.
King was sentenced to five years imprisonment and a $5000 fine. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme
Court affirmed the convictions of both men but reversed King's conviction, finding the "case against
[King] is simply too weak to support the verdict." King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182, 1189 (Miss.1991).
THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW

King, acting pro se, filed a complaint against Dees and other defendants who were involved
in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal charges against her. She later retained counsel,
who filed an amended complaint, claiming, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Dees violated King's
constitutional rights by giving false testimony before the grand jury and during the state court
proceedings, coercing other witnesses to testify falsely, and conspiring with other defendants to have
her prosecuted on false charges.
Dees filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment, contending that King
failed to state a cause of action, and that Dees, in his individual and official capacities, was entitled
to qualified immunity and absolute immunity granted to a witness at trial. King, still represented by
counsel, filed a response, but submitted no summary judgment evidence in support of her response.
Prior to ruling on the motion, the district court granted King's motion to dismiss all defendants from
the suit, with the exception of Dees.
Because matters outside the pleadings were considered, the court applied a summary
judgment standard to its ruling on Dees' motion. See, FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b). The court found no
genuine issue of material fact for trial and found that King was "either ... foreclosed as a matter of
law from pursuing her claims or ha[d] wholly failed to present any evidence in support of them." The
court granted Dees' summary judgment motion and dismissed King's suit.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo. Abbott v. Equity Group,
Inc., 2 F.3d 613, 618 (5th Cir.1993). Summary judgment is appropriate only if "there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party in entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
FED.R.CIV.R. 56(c). If the moving party meets the initial burden of establishing that there is no
genuine issue, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidence of the existence of a
genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91
L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A moving party may meet its initial burden of establishing that there is no
genuine issue by pointing out "the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case."
Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 913 (5th Cir.1992). "[I]n the face of the defendant's

properly supported motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff [can]not rest on his allegations ... to
get to a jury without "any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.' "
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)
(quoting First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1593, 20
L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)).
ANALYSIS
King, pro se on appeal, contends that the facts were not sufficiently developed to enable the
district court to determine if there was a genuine issue for trial. Discovery matters are entrusted to
the "sound discretion" of the district court. Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir.1990).
Once a motion for summary judgment has been filed, a nonmoving party may seek a continuance if
she believes that additional discovery is necessary to respond to the motion. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(f);
International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir.1991). The nonmoving
party must show how the additional discovery will defeat the summary judgment motion.
International Shortstop, 939 F.2d at 1267. King did not seek a continuance requesting additional
discovery and has failed to show that discovery was necessary to establish any issue of material fact
that would preclude summary judgment. See, NGS American, Inc. v. Barnes, 998 F.2d 296, 300 (5th
Cir.1993).
A plaintiff's verified complaint can be considered as summary judgment evidence to the extent
that it comports with the requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e). Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107,
1114-15 (5th Cir.1981). King's original complaint was verified as true and correct under penalty of
perjury and could have been considered as competent summary judgment evidence. However, King
subsequently filed two amended complaints which were not so verified. An amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint
specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleading. Boelens v. Redman
Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir.1985).
Applying this rule, King's second amended complaint is the only effective complaint, and
because it is unverified, it does not constitute competent summary judgment evidence.

In granting summary judgment for Dees, the district court determined, citing King's
deposition, that King failed to produce evidence that Dees presented any testimony before the grand
jury, much less false testimony. It held that Dees, as a police investigator, was protected by absolute
immunity from civil liability for testimony given in a criminal proceeding. It also noted that King
admitted in her deposition that she had no proof that Dees threatened or coerced any witnesses.
It is clear after a review of the record that King failed to present any summary judgment
evidence in support of her claims, not even her own affidavit. The only record evidence to which she
cites in her appellate brief is an unsworn and unauthenticated letter to the district court signed by
King. Unauthenticated documents are improper as summary judgment evidence. Duplantis v. Shell
Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 192 (5th Cir.1991).
Because King has wholly failed to meet her summary judgment burden, this court need not
consider the merits of the various causes of action she asserts. Moody v. Jefferson Parish School
Bd., 2 F.3d 604, 606 (5th Cir.1993).
CONCLUSION
The district court's grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.