Guillotte v. Lafourche Par.

• Decision Date: 11 February 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-1400
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
• Parties: BRYAN JOSEPH GUILLOTTE v. LAFOURCHE PARISH, ET AL.

BRYAN JOSEPH GUILLOTTE
v.
LAFOURCHE PARISH, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 21-1400

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

February 11, 2022

SECTION “I” (4)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN WELLS ROBY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are a Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 35) filed by defendants Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), and a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) filed by Lafourche Parish Government on behalf of named defendants Lafourche Parish and Lafourche Parish Medical Department. The motions and the underlying matter were referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), § 1915e(2), and § 1915A, and as applicable, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) and(2). Upon review of the record, the Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing.

I. Background

A. Complaint

Plaintiff Brian Joseph Guillotte was a pretrial detainee housed in the Lafourche Parish Correctional Complex (“LPCC”) in Thibodaux, Louisiana at the time of the filing of this pro se and in forma pauperis civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 6, at ¶ III(A), at 3. He has since been released. ECF No. 40. Guillotte named as defendants Lafourche Parish, Lafourche Parish Medical Department, LPCC staff, Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”), the Federal Emergency

1

Management Agency (“FEMA”), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). Id., ¶III(B)-(G), at 4.

Guillotte alleges that on July 10, 2021, inmates in POD 3 became ill with symptoms similar to the side-effects from the J&J Covid-19 vaccine announced on the news. Id., ¶IV, at 4. He claims that the medical staff did not watch the inmates long enough after they were given the vaccine. He further alleges that one inmate was sent back to the tier despite the medical department's knowledge that he had COVID-19. Id. at 5. Guillotte alleges that Lt. Stanley Jones told him on July 12, 2021, that he would be tested but he never was. Id. He also claims that on July 13, 2021, he went to medical when he thought he had fever and the medic told him he did not have fever. Id. A few days later, Nurse Barbara refused to give additional sick call forms to inmate Trey Nevkich. He also complains that his dormitory was receiving food on Styrofoam trays, which shows that the jail was quarantining inmates even though the officials said there was no COVID-19 in the jail and testing was not done. Id. Guillotte fears the possibility that he could get COVID-19 or die, and he has been reprimanded for causing trouble for the staff by speaking up on the dorm for inmate rights.

As relief, Guillotte requests that inmates be tested and treated for COVID-19. He also asks that LPCC be placed in quarantine. He also seeks financial compensation in the amount of $1 billion for pain and suffering and indifference to his life and medical needs, negligence, gross negligence, and violation of his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech.

B. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss

a. Motion filed by FEMA and CDC (ECF No. 35)

FEMA and the CDC move to dismiss Guillotte's complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Guillotte's claims are frivolous and meritless. ECF

2

No. 35-1, at 3-4. The defendants further assert that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity and that § 1983 also contains no waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. at 4-5. Further, the defendants argue that this court lacks jurisdiction under the Federal Torts Claims Act or the Mandamus Act. Id. at 5-7. The defendants further argue that Guillotte's complaint can be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) because he has failed to state a claim for relief under the Mandamus Act, habeas corpus law, and § 1983, which provides no remedy against a federal actor. Id. at 7-10.

b. Motion filed by Lafourche Parish Government

Lafourche Parish Government also alleges that Guillotte's complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Guillotte's frivolous and insubstantial claims. ECF No. 41, at 1. The movant argues that Guillotte failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this suit, which is grounds for dismissal. ECF No. 41-2, at 3-4. Furthermore, the movant asserts that Guillotte failed to allege that a parish policy or custom caused him injury or a basis to invoke vicarious liability, and thereby has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted against it. Id. at 5-6.

II. Standards of Review

A. Standards for Frivolousness Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss cases filed by prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis upon a determination that they are frivolous. The Court has broad discretion in determining the frivolous nature of the complaint. See Cay v. Estelle, 789 F.2d 318, 325 (5th Cir. 1986), modified on other grounds, Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993). However, the Court may not sua sponte

3

dismiss an action merely because of questionable legal theories or unlikely factual allegations in the complaint.

Under this statute, a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998). “A [claim] lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 882, 889 (5th Cir. 1998)). It lacks an arguable factual basis only if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless, ” a category encompassing fanciful, fantastic, and delusional allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). Thus, the Court must determine whether plaintiff's claims are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly baseless factual allegations. Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994); Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1995); Moore v. Mabus, 976 F.2d 268, 269 (5th Cir. 1992).

B. Motions to Dismiss Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), the Court may dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a basis for jurisdiction or a claim upon which relief may be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead in the complaint “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010); Guidry v. Am. Pub. Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007).

4

The Supreme Court, however, has declared that “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover, “‘factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, '” and “the plaintiff must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Guidry, 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. 550 U.S. at 570). The United States Supreme Court has explained:

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops shorts of the line between possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing and quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556-57).

Thus, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter...