Clark v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 03 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-177-SDD-RLB |
| Parties | LARRY E. CLARK, SR. v. JOHN B. EDWARDS, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
NOTICE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants, Shawn D. Wilson, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“Secretary Wilson”) and Charles D. McBride, Right of Way Administrator of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“Administrator McBride”) (collectively, “DOTD Defendants”)[1] (R. Doc. 13); the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, John Bel Edwards, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Louisiana (“Governor Edwards”) (R. Doc. 15); and the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants, Justice Jay McCallum, Judge John Michael Guidry, and Judge Ramon Lafitte (collectively the “Judicial Defendants”) (R. Doc. 16). Plaintiff opposes the motions. (R. Doc. 33). The DOTD Defendants and Governor Edwards filed Replies. (R. Docs. 35 36).
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's “Motion for an Order Seeking for Additional Time to Serve Some of the Defendants Named in Plaintiff's Original Complaint Filed on March 29, 2021” (“Motion for Additional Time to Serve”) (R. Doc. 27) and Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended and/or Supplemental Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) (R. Doc. 38). The Judicial Defendants filed an Opposition. (R. Doc. 39).
On October 19, 2021, Larry E. Clark, Sr. (“Plaintiff” or “Clark”) commenced this action by filing a 208-page “Complaint for Prospective Injunctive Relief and/or for Prospective Declaratory Relief and for a Writ of Mandamus Based Upon Some Defendants Continuing Violations of Federal Laws in Five (5) Cases Ongoing in the State Court.” (R. Doc. 1).
This action has its origins in three consolidated expropriation proceedings commenced in the Louisiana First Judicial District Court of Caddo Parish in 1986 (Docket Nos. 325, 511; 325, 512; 328, 772), through which the State of Louisiana sought to expropriate three lots of land from Clark (and his wife)[2] for the construction of Interstate 49. Clark leased a building on the property to L & M Hair Care Products, Inc. (“L & M”), which operated an African-American hair care products business. Prior to trial, Clark and the State entered into a Joint Stipulated Agreement resolving the issue of the takings and preserving for trial the issue of the amount of compensation for the relocation and loss of the uniqueness of the location on which L & M was located.
The trial court found that Clark was entitled to compensation for the loss, and awarded Clark an additional $191, 781.00 above the stipulated amount, plus other costs. On appeal, the Louisiana Second Circuit found in favor of the State of Louisiana, reduced the total award, and reversed the portion of the award related to L&M. See State of La., Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Larry E. Clark, et ux., 548 So.2d 365 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989), writ denied, 552 So.2d 395 (La. 1993). The Louisiana Second Circuit held that because the tenant L & M was not a party to the suit, the award for costs and losses associated with L & M was improper.
In 1990, L & M filed an action to recover its relocation costs in the Louisiana Fist Judicial District Court of Caddo Parish (Docket No. 363, 679). The trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of L & M on the contention that the court “had previously resolved the issues of entitlement to and the cost of a replacement facility in the earlier Clark expropriation proceeding.” L & M Products, Inc., et al. v. State of La., Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 704 So.2d 415, 416 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1997). At oral argument on appeal, however, “both parties affirmatively maintained a desire to have the district court judgment reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings, ” and the Louisiana Second Circuit remanded the action. Id. at 417 (citing L & M Hair Care Products, Inc. v. State, DOTD, 590 So.2d 122 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1991)). Clark then began filing pro se pleadings and, by May of 1996, had assigned all of L & M's rights to himself and was proceeding as an intervening party on behalf of himself. L & M Products, 704 So.2d at 417. Prior to trial, however, the trial judge dismissed all claims by L & M and Clark with prejudice for failure to file pretrial orders despite several repeated orders to do so. Id. at 418. The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed the judgment, finding “no error in the trial court's choice of action” in the form of dismissal with prejudice. Id. at 419. Clark did not appeal this ruling further.
Clark and L & M then started filing multiple suits, as detailed below, in various state and federal courts. One of those actions involved legal malpractice claims directed at Clark and L & M's previous attorneys in the First Judicial District Court of Caddo Parish (Docket No. 362, 381). In early 1999, the Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of this legal malpractice action as perempted and dismissed the appeal of a dismissal of a recusal motion and an award of sanctions. Mr. & Mrs. Larry E. Clark, et al. v. Mangham, Hardy, Rolfs & Abadie, et al., 733 So.2d 43 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1999).
Clark and L & M also filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish (Docket No. 425, 690). In an opinion by Judge Guidry, the Louisiana First Circuit affirmed a 2005 judgment and a 2006 judgment dismissing all of L & M's claims, which sought, in part, the nullification of the original expropriation judgments and other judgments rendered in suits filed by Clark and L & M in state and federal courts. Larry E. Clark v. Louisiana Dep't of Transp. & Dev., et al., No. 2007-1364, 2008 WL 2065248 (), writ denied, 993 So.2d 1286 (La. 2008). In another opinion by Judge Guidry, the Louisiana First Circuit similarly affirmed a 2012 judgment dismissing Clark's claims with prejudice by sustaining peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no right of action, no cause of action, and res judicata. Larry E. Clark v. State of La., Dept. of Transp. & Dev., No. 2013-0371, 2013 WL 5972214 (La.App. 1st Cir. Nov. 8, 2013), reh'g denied (Mar. 19, 2014), writ denied, 140 So.3d 1191 (La. 2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1030 (2014).
Clark and L&M filed two additional actions considered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The first action was removed from the Louisiana First Judicial District Court of Caddo Parish (Docket No. 429, 240) to the Western District of Louisiana when Clark and L & M amended their pleadings to raise various federal civil rights claims similar to those raised in this action. Larry E. Clark, et al. v. State of La., Dept. of Transp. & Dev, et al., No. 98-1753, ECF No. 1 (W.D. La. Sept. 15, 1998). Clark sought to appeal in forma pauperis prior to entry of any appealable judgment. The Fifth Circuit denied the appeal as frivolous and warned Clark that any additional frivolous appeals would result in sanctions. See Larry E. Clark, et al. v. Louisiana ex. rel. La. Dept. of Transp. & Dev., et al., 184 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1999). The district judge ultimately dismissed Clark and L & M's federal law claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and remanded the remaining claims under state law. Clark, No. 98-1753, ECF No. 65 (W.D. La. Feb. 16, 2000), report and recommendation adopted, ECF No. 69 (W.D. La. Mar. 21, 2000). According to Clark, when the action was remanded, the State trial court dismissed the action without prejudice, Clark appealed but “decided not to file a Brief on appeal, ” and the Louisiana Second Circuit dismissed the appeal in December of 2011. (R. Doc. 1 at 178-180).
The second action was an original filing in the Western District of Louisiana in which Clark sought a mandatory injunction and/or writ of mandamus compelling the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary, Federico Pena and its Administrator, John Salter, to withhold all future federal funds from the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development in connection with the construction of Interstate 49. See Larry E. Clark, et al. v. Frederico Pena et al., No. 96-1360, ECF No. 1 (W.D. La. June 5, 1996). In 1997, the district court issued a ruling dismissing the claims with prejudice, finding that “any claims for pecuniary losses L & M or the Clarks may have suffered as a result of the expropriation suits are barred by the 1987 settlement and compromise between the Clarks and the DOTD.” Id., ECF No. 32 at 4. The district court issued judgments in favor of the defendants. Id., ECF Nos. 33, 38. In 1999, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial