Ferguson v. Gates
| Decision Date | 12 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01104 |
| Citation | 602 F.Supp.3d 942 |
| Parties | Carmen D. FERGUSON v. Dusty GATES et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Keith Thomas Whiddon, Law Office of Keith T. Whiddon, Monroe, LA, for Carmen D. Ferguson.
Blake Joseph Arcuri, Craig E. Frosch, Jason Paul Wixom, Laura Cannizzaro Rodrigue, Frosch Rodrigue & Arcuri, New Orleans, LA, for Dusty Gates, Earl Roberts, Cade Nolan.
Martha R. Crenshaw, Connor Charles Headrick, Joshua J. Dara, Jr., Mary Allison Johnson, Gold Weems et al., Alexandria, LA., for Union Parish Detention Center, Donnie Adams.
RULING
Pending before the Court are multiple motions. The first is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 39] filed by Defendants Warden Donnie Adams ("Warden Adams") and Union Parish Detention Center ("UPDC"). Also pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 40] filed by Defendants Sheriff Dusty Gates ("Sheriff Gates"), Cade Nolan ("Nolan"), and Detective Earl Roberts ("Detective Roberts").
The Motions are unopposed.
For the following reasons, the Motions for Summary Judgment [Doc. Nos. 39 and 40] are GRANTED.
On September 24, 2018, Union Parish Sheriff's Office ("UPSO") Detective Roberts completed an affidavit for arrest warrant (the "Affidavit"), wherein he requested that a warrant be issued for the arrest of Carmen D. Ferguson ("Ferguson") on the charge of simple kidnapping.1 The affidavit detailed that on August 17, 2018, UPSO received a call from Crystal Hefner ("Hefner"), who is a caregiver for Danny Johnson ("Johnson"), who suffers from dementia and requires a full-time sitter. Hefner stated that the reason for the call was out of concern for Johnson, who she saw get into an unfamiliar red car. She told the dispatcher that she was finally able to reach Johnson by phone, and he told her he was at West Monroe Walmart. Hefner then went to the West Monroe Walmart and saw the red car that she saw Johnson get into earlier. She saw a white female, two white males, and a small boy surrounding the car. Hefner took photos of the car and the people around it. Hefner then followed the female into the store to inquire about why Johnson was getting into her car. The female asserted that she did not know what Hefner was talking about, and she told Hefner that she did not know who Johnson was. Simultaneously, the male who remained in the vehicle drove away, leaving Johnson in the parking lot. When Detective Roberts and UPSO Detective Mike Bryan ("Detective Bryan") spoke to Johnson, he told them that he did not know the people who had picked him up and brought him to Walmart. He also told the detectives that the same people stole $80.00 from his wallet.2
An eyewitness was able to get the license plate number on the red car. The vehicle was registered to an Amy Guthrie. Amy Guthrie advised the detectives that her ex-husband, William Guthrie ("Guthrie"), was in possession of that car. Amy Guthrie also told the detectives that the female in the photos Hefner had taken was Tiera Mooney ("Mooney"), who is Guthrie's girlfriend. Mooney was arrested and questioned and denied any involvement. She told the detectives that Guthrie told her that he and a female named Carmen kidnapped the man.3
On September 14, 2018, Detective Roberts learned that Guthrie had been arrested on unrelated charges and was detained at Ouachita Correctional Center. On that same day, Detective Roberts spoke to Guthrie, who, according to an Affidavit, stated that Carmen D. Ferguson ("Ferguson") was his girlfriend. She made Guthrie drive to Rocky Branch, and this is where they picked up Johnson. Guthrie told the detective that Ferguson had done this before the current incident.4
Based on this information, Detective Roberts, along with his partner Detective Nolan, requested that a warrant be issued for Ferguson's arrest because they believed probable cause for Ferguson's arrest existed at that time.5 Judge James H. Boddie, Jr., signed the arrest warrant on September 25, 2018.6
In April 2020, Ferguson was arrested in Ouachita Parish on unrelated charges and was sentenced to seven days in jail and three years’ probation on those charges. She was supposed to be released on May 1, 2020; however, she was picked up on this day by UPSO on the outstanding warrant, and then transferred to UPDC.7 She went through the booking process at UPDC, but Ferguson was transferred to the Louisiana Transitional Center for Women ("LTCW") in Madison Parish, Louisiana, because UPDC did not have facilities for housing females. Ferguson was at UPDC for a matter of hours. Ferguson remained at LTCW until May 27, 2020.
Ferguson contends that she was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned in violation of federal and state law.
On April 29, 2021, Ferguson filed suit in this Court in the above-captioned matter against UPDC; Warden Ray Hanson ("Warden Hanson"); Sheriff Dusty Gates; Detective Roberts; and Cade Nolan. [Doc. No. 6, Complaint].8 On August 5, 2021, Ferguson moved to substitute Warden Adams in place of Warden Hanson.9 Ferguson made clear Warden Adams was being sued solely in his official capacity. On August 6, 2021, this Court entered a Judgment dismissing all claims against Warden Hanson with prejudice and substituting Warden Adams, in his official capacity, as a defendant.10
The issues have been briefed, and the Court is prepared to issue a ruling.
Summary judgment shall [be] grant[ed] ... 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). A fact is "material" if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in this case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
If the moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v. Apache Corp. , 19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994). The nonmoving party must show more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). In evaluating the evidence tendered by the parties, the Court must accept the evidence of the nonmovant as credible and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.
In deciding unopposed summary judgment motions, the Fifth Circuit has noted that a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there was no opposition. Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. , 50 F.3d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1995). The movant has the burden to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless it has done so, the court may not grant the motion, irrespective of whether any response was filed. Powell v. Delaney , No. CIV.A.SA00CA0426NN, 2001 WL 1910556, at *5–6 (W.D. Tex. June 14, 2001). Nevertheless, if no response to the motion for summary judgment has been filed, the court may find as undisputed the statement of facts in the motion for summary judgment. Id. at 1 and n.2 ; see also Thompson v. Eason , 258 F. Supp. 2d 508, 515 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (). See also:
UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Long , 227 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (); Bookman v. Shubzda , 945 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D. Tex. 1996) ().
The court has no obligation to "sift through the record in search of evidence" to support the nonmovant's opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Forsyth v. Barr , 19 F.3d 1527, 1533 (5th Cir. 1994).
Ferguson contends "[t]he Defendants’ conduct constituted wrongful arrest and wrongful imprisonment, in violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights." Ferguson's federal claims were brought under Title 42 USC § 1983, which provides for the recovery of damages when a person is deprived of her federal constitutional or statutory rights by a person acting under color of state law. See Davidson v. Cannon , 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668, 88 L.Ed. 2d. 677 (1986) ; and Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed. 2d. 662 (1986). Allegations of mere negligence will not suffice to make out a claim under § 1983. Id. An allegedly unlawful arrests procured pursuant to a facially valid warrant does not give rise to liability under 42 USC § 1983. See Herrera v. Millsap , 862 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir. 1989). "A warrant is valid even though the court, through lack of information or otherwise, has issued it for the arrest of a person in fact innocent of the offense alleged." Rodriguez v. Ritchey , 556 F.2d 1185, 1190 n. 21 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied , 434 U.S. 1047, 98 S.Ct. 894, 54 L.Ed.2d 799 (1978) (cleaned up). "The Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested." Baker v. McCollan , 443 U.S. 137,145, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) ; Maier v. Green , 485 F. Supp.2d 711, 720 (W.D. La. 2007).
Defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on claims of federal law. The federal claims against each Defendant will be analyzed separately.
Defendants assert that the federal claims should be dismissed against Warden Adams because the claims are redundant of the claims against UPDC. The Court agrees...
To continue reading
Request your trial