Edney v. Williams

In 2008, Officer Joe Edney was involved in the arrest of Carlos Williams. Williams alleged that Edney had attempted to stop a vehicle in which Williams had been a passenger. When the vehicle stopped, Williams ran until Edney demanded that he stop. Williams stated that after he surrendered, Edney began screaming at him obscenities, threats, and racial slurs. Williams alleged that Edney then sprayed Williams with mace and kicked and stomped Williams in the face, neck, and shoulder, causing him injuries. Williams sued; the return of service was made in March 2010; by July 2010, Williams applied for default, stating Edney failed to respond to the complaint. The circuit court entered default judgment in November 2010. The case remained stagnant for four and a half years after entry of default. In April 2015, the trial court found Williams failed to notify or name the City of Greenville as a party, and as such, the claims against Edney in his official capacity had to be dismissed. The trial court then awarded damages in favor of Williams against Edney individually. Thereafter, Endey moved for relief from the judgment, contending the final judgment awarding damages, fees and costs was the only notice he received that he had been sued. Further, Edney alleged that the summons and complaint was delivered to another Greenville Police Department employee, and that person's signature, who was not authorized to received service of process for him, appeared on the proof of service. Thus, the default judgment entered against him was void. The court found that Edney’s motion was well-taken and held that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over Edney because of improper service of process. The court ordered the entry of default, the default judgment, and the order of the court awarding damages to be set aside. Counsel for Williams immediately made an ore tenus motion for an additional 120 days within which to serve Edney with a copy of the summons and complaint. The trial court reserved ruling and ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice. At the end of the hearing, counsel for Williams handed a copy of the summons and complaint to Edney. Edney moved to dismiss, arguing the statute of limitations has expired. Williams contended that he should have been allowed to begin the lawsuit anew because he had demonstrated a good-faith effort to serve Edney. Edney appealed the trial court’s holding that Williams had established good cause for his failure to serve process within the statutory time period. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider in its analysis of good cause Williams’s four-and-a-half-year delay in pursuing this action. Therefore, it reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded this case to the trial court to include the length of delay in its analysis of good cause. View "Edney v. Williams" on Justia Law