Carlisle v. Normand
| Decision Date | 31 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO: 16-3767 SECTION: "H"(1) |
| Parties | TAYLOR CARLISLE, ET AL. v. NEWELL NORMAND, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court are three Motions: a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Joe McNair and McNair & McNair, LLC (Doc. 130); a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Richard Thompson and Joseph Marino (Doc. 138); and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Kristen Becnel, Tracey Mussal, and Kevin Theriot (Doc. 128). For the following reasons, Defendants Joe McNair and McNair & McNair, LLC's Motion is GRANTED IN PART, Defendants Richard Thompson and Joseph Marino's Motion is GRANTED IN PART, and Defendants Kristen Becnel, Tracey Mussal, and Kevin Theriot's Motion is GRANTED.
In this suit, Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the Jefferson Parish Drug Court ("Drug Court") is conducted. In addition to their individual claims, they seek to represent a class of individuals who were similarly sentenced by the Drug Court.
Plaintiffs' Complaint and First Supplementing Complaint made the following allegations.1
Plaintiff Taylor Carlisle was arrested on November 9, 2012 and charged in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson with possession of oxycodone in case number 12-6158 and with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia in case number 12-6159. On January 30, 2015 he entered a guilty plea as to all charges. In case number 12-6159, he was sentenced to time served, while his plea in case number 12-6158 was entered pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes § 13:5304, also known as the "Louisiana Drug Court Statute." He was sentenced to between zero and five years, with the sentence deferred contingent upon his completion of the Jefferson Parish Intensive Drug Court Program while on probation. As part of this program, Carlisle was required to maintain regular contact with the program probation officer and Drug Court, attend regular AA meetings, consent to regular drug testing, and present required documentation to the probation officer and Drug Court. He also agreed to waive due process rights in Drug Court proceedings.
His primary claim involves allegations that he received excessive sentences from Drug Court for failure to comply with the terms of the program. On April 28, 2015, he was sanctioned to 90 days flat time.2 On August 25, 2015, he was sanctioned with six months of flat time for contempt of court when he failed to appear for a hearing. Carlisle brings six claims relative to his experience in Drug Court, essentially averring that the closed courtroom, lack of court reporter, and lack of adversarial proceedings violate his due process rights. He also alleges that these sentences were in excess of those permittedunder the state law authorizing Drug Court and that they are impermissible flat time sentences. He argues that this is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protections against cruel and unusual punishment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting Drug Court from acting in this unconstitutional manner. Second, he brings a § 1983 claim against Sheriff Normand for deliberate indifference in keeping Carlisle in jail for the flat time sentences of 90 and 180 days, in violation of Louisiana law and his Equal Protection and Due Process rights. Third, he brings a § 1983 claim against Drug Court Administrator Kristen Becnel, Program Supervisor Tracy Mussal, Probation Coordinator Kevin Theriot (collectively, the "Drug Court Administrators"), and Director of Counseling Joe McNair for failure to properly train and supervise the implements of Drug Court policy.
In addition to these constitutional claims, he brings "pendant state law claims" against several individuals. First, he brings a legal malpractice claim against the Drug Court's Indigent Public Defender Board and its staff attorney, Joe Marino. Mr. Marino was appointed to represent Carlisle in Drug Court, and Carlisle contends that he breached his duty by failing to appropriately defend Carlisle. Second, he brings a claim against Drug Court Clinical Director Joe McNair for breach of his duty as a therapist. He avers that McNair owed him a duty to act within the standard of care governing the treatment of patients with substance abuse problems and that he breached that duty by failing to make proper recommendations as to his treatment.
Plaintiff Emile Heron has been a participant in the Drug Court program since April 17, 2012. He pleaded guilty to one count of possession of oxycodone. He alleges that he suffered periods of detention for technical violations of his probation without procedural due process. On July 30, 2013, he was sentencedto 24 hours flat time for failing to complete required community service. He next alleges that, on November 12, 2013, he was sentenced to 30 days flat time for "associating with a felon" despite having never committed that offense. On January 14, 2014, he was sanctioned with 60 days flat time for failing to appear at Drug Court on January 3, 2014. He further avers that he was held for an additional four and a half months at the end of this sentence while waiting for a long term care bed to become available. Eventually, he was sent to Assisi Bridge House in Shreveport for seven and half months of inpatient treatment. Upon release, he was again sanctioned for noncompliance and sentenced to 16 hours of community service due November 18, 2014. It seems that he failed to complete this community service and was therefore sentenced to 48 hours in the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center on December 2, 2014. On February 5, 2015 he was held in contempt for failure to pay $1,624.50 in fines from the original plea agreement. He was later jailed on December 15, 2015 for failure to complete community service. He alleges that he was held until January 26, 2016, at which time he was sanctioned with six months' time. He alleges that all of these sanctions were imposed without hearing, a court reporter, or formal notice in violation of due process. He also alleges that, while he was incarcerated, his probation was extended by motion without his knowledge.
Plaintiffs also seek certification of the following two classes:
Plaintiffs aver that all of these individuals were subject to a pattern and practice of conduct whereby they were deprived of liberty under color of state law. They aver that the subject class may consist of more than one thousand individuals and that their claims involve common questions of law and fact.
Three groups of Defendants moved separately to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims as stated in the Complaint and First Supplementing Complaint. The Court addressed the motions with a consolidated Order and Reasons on May 23, 2017.4
The Court dismissed all personal-capacity claims against Defendant McNair. The Court dismissed the negligence claims without prejudice, findingthat Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a doctor-patient relationship.5 The Court dismissed the failure to train and deliberate indifference claims without prejudice because the Complaints failed to allege a causal connection between McNair and the sanctions imposed by a judge. Further, the Court found that Defendant McNair had qualified immunity against a suit for damages under § 1983 in his personal capacity because Plaintiffs failed to establish that the due process waivers they signed were clearly illegal. The Court accordingly dismissed the personal-capacity § 1983 claims for damages with prejudice. The Court found that Plaintiff Heron failed to plead any facts supporting his claims against Defendant McNair and dismissed Plaintiff Heron's claims without prejudice. Finally, the Court struck the class allegations against Defendant McNair for the failure to plead common questions of law and fact relative to him.
The Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs' legal malpractice claims against Defendants Thompson and Marino. The Court found that although such claims fell within the Court's supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiffs failed to allege that the actions of Defendant Marino caused the harm of which Plaintiffs complain. Plaintiffs further made no factual allegations supporting a malpractice claim against Defendant Thompson.
The Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims for damages against the Drug Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial