Donley v. Hudson's Salvage, LLC

• Decision Date: 29 November 2011
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-3223
• Parties: FLOYD P. DONLEY, SR. v. HUDSON'S SALVAGE, LLC ET AL.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

FLOYD P. DONLEY, SR.
v.
HUDSON'S SALVAGE, LLC ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-3223

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Dated: November 29, 2011

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTIONS

This is a civil rights action brought by pro se plaintiff Floyd P. Donley, Sr. against two discrete sets of defendants: (1) Hudson's Salvage LLC, "Hudson's Insurance Carrier," and Hudson's employees Linda Cox, Elaine Hingle, Alan Spallinger, Lois Peltier, Angie Carter and Jerry Holifield (the "Hudson's Defendants"); and (2) City of Amite Police Officers Allen Ordeneaux, III, Joey Phillips and Dominic Cuti, Police Chief Jerry Trabona, Captain Ted Simmons, Sgt. Varnado, Amite City Magistrate Charles Reid, the Amite City Council and Mayor Reginald Goldsby (the "Amite Defendants").

Donley's claims arise out of an incident that occurred on September 24, 2008, at the Dirt Cheap Store in Amite, Louisiana, during which he was arrested and charged with two counts of battery on store employees Hingle and Spallinger. Plaintiff was convicted on December 3, 2008 in the Amite City Mayor's Court of one count of battery on Hingle.

Page 2

He appealed to the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa, which dismissed the criminal charges against him on October 7, 2009.¹

In his original complaint, Donley brings claims of unlawful detention and malicious prosecution against the Hudson's Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana state law. Record Doc. No. 1. In his amended complaint, he asserts numerous additional claims arising under Section 1983 and Louisiana law. Donley claims that Officers Ordeneaux and Phillips illegally searched and used excessive force against him, and that Officer Cuti failed to protect him from the excessive force. Plaintiff claims that these officers unlawfully imprisoned and arrested him without probable cause. He brings claims of conspiracy and malicious prosecution against all defendants. He alleges that Magistrate Reid violated his due process rights during his criminal prosecution by failing to arraign him formally. He claims that Sgt. Varnado, Capt. Simmons and Chief Trabona failed to investigate adequately his complaint to the police department about the events of September 24, 2008. He asserts that Capt. Simmons and Chief Trabona knew that the arresting officers committed perjury during his criminal trial, but did nothing to stop it and failed to suspend the officers. He brings a claim against Capt. Simmons, Chief

Page 3

Trabona, Mayor Goldsby and the City Council for failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise their police officer employees. Finally, he claims that, because Reid was also the City Attorney, Mayor Goldsby and the City Council illegally appointed Reid as a magistrate of the Mayor's Court. Record Doc. No. 5.

This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for all proceedings and entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) upon written consent of all parties. Record Doc. No. 130.

Each set of defendants filed a motion for summary judgment: (1) The Amite Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Record Doc. No. 62; and (2) The Hudson's Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Record Doc. No. 69. Donley filed his own motion for summary judgment, as well as two other motions that are currently pending before me: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Record Doc. No. 89; (2) Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Court to Grant Plaintiff's Previous Request for Summary Judgment, Record Doc. No. 118; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Have Court Appoint a Hearing Impaired Interpreter, Record Doc. No. 93 (which is unopposed).

The Amite Defendants filed timely memoranda in opposition to plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, Record Doc. Nos. 105, 121, and a supplemental memorandum in support of their own summary judgment motion. Record Doc. No. 134. The Amite Defendants argue that plaintiff's claims against them are barred by res judicata (claim

Page 4

preclusion), collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), qualified immunity under state and federal law, the lack of any evidence of any unconstitutional municipal policy by the defendant Amite City Council, and judicial immunity for defendant Reid. The Amite Defendants support their arguments with sworn affidavits from defendants Ordeneaux, Phillips and Simmons; certified copies of the Amite City Police Department arrest and booking documents from the September 24, 2008 incident; plaintiff's prior complaint in this court against defendants Ordeneaux, Phillips, Cuti, Trabona, Simmons and Jason Schwebel² in Donley v. Ordeneaux et al., Civil Action No. 09-6422-J; this court's order and reasons granting the police officers' summary judgment motion and the judgment dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's complaint in that action, Donley v. Ordeneaux, No. 09-6422, 2010 WL 2836115 (E.D. La. Jul 16, 2010) (Barbier, J.), aff'd, 419 F. App'x 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 2011 WL 3420716 (2011); the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirming this court's dismissal of all claims in Civil Action No. 09-6422-J, Donley v. Ordeneaux, 419 F. App'x at 519; plaintiff's prior complaint against defendant Reid in Civil Action No. 2009-0004169 in the 21st Judicial District Court and that court's judgment in favor of Reid; the decision of the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit of the State of Louisiana, affirming the 21st Judicial District

Page 5

Court's dismissal of Civil Action No. 2009-0004169, Donley v. Reid, No. 2010 CA 1217, 2010 WL 5487149 (La. App. 1st Cir. Dec. 22, 2010), writ denied, 61 So. 3d 669 (La. 2011), cert. denied, 79 U.S.L.W. 3712 (2011); the Louisiana Supreme Court's denial of Donley's application for writs in that case, Donley v. Reid, 61 So. 3d at 669; the opinion of the First Circuit Court of Appeal in No. 2010 CA 1315, Donley v. Hudson's Salvage LLC, 57 So. 3d 605, 2010 WL 5480438 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2010), affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the 21st Judicial District Court in Civil Action No. 2009-0004174, in which the trial court had dismissed all of plaintiff's claims in that suit against Hudson's Salvage LLC, Cox, Hingle, Spallinger, Peltier and Holifield; and a letter dated October 11, 2011 from the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court to defendants' attorney, advising that the Court had denied Donley's writ of certiorari from the Fifth Circuit's decision in Donley v. Ordeneaux, 419 F. App'x 519.

The Hudson's Defendants argue in their summary judgment motion that all of plaintiff's claims against them, except his malicious prosecution claim, are prescribed. As to the malicious prosecution claim, these defendants contend that Donley can produce no evidence to establish the absence of probable cause to arrest him, which is an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim under Louisiana law. The Hudson's Defendants also argue that Donley cannot bring any Section 1983 claims against them because they are private actors who did not act under color of state law. They support

Page 6

their motion for summary judgment with the same First Circuit opinion described above in No. 2010 CA 1315, Donley v. Hudson's Salvage LLC, 2010 WL 5480438. Finally, the Hudson's Defendants adopt all of the arguments raised and exhibits filed by the Amite Defendants in their summary judgment motion.

Donley filed timely memoranda in opposition to defendants' summary judgment motions. Record Doc. Nos. 77, 78. He filed supplemental memoranda in support of his own summary judgment motion. Record Doc. Nos. 106, 133. He filed several motions for leave to file additional memoranda and evidence, Record Doc. Nos. 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, in many of which he reiterated his arguments in support of his motion for summary judgment and in opposition to defendants' motions. Plaintiff's motions for leave were granted to the extent he sought to file the additional materials. Record Doc. No. 132. Thus, Donley has filed voluminous, repetitive and often inadmissible materials in support of his arguments. However, no defendant objected to the admissibility of the submitted materials.³ Therefore, in deciding the pending summary judgment motions,

Page 7

I have considered all of the materials submitted by the pro se plaintiff and all of his arguments raised in all of his written submissions.

Having considered the complaint, as amended; the record; the submissions of the parties; and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED and that plaintiff's motions for summary judgment are DENIED, for the following reasons. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Have Court Appoint a Hearing Impaired Interpreter, Record Doc. No. 93, is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense-or the part of each claim or defense-on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Rule 56 was revised to "take effect on December 1, 2010, and shall govern in all proceedings thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending." Order of the Supreme Court of the United States (Apr. 28, 2010), www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcv10.pdf. Because "the standard for...