Henagan v. City of Lafayette
| Decision Date | 16 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 6:21-CV-03946 |
| Parties | GEORGE K HENAGAN v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE ET AL |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6) filed by defendants Lafayette City-Parish Government (“LCG”),[1] Lafayette MayorPresident Josh Guillory (“Mayor”),[2] Lafayette City-Parish Attorney Greg Logan (“Logan”),[3] former interim Lafayette Chief of Police Scott Morgan (“Chief Morgan”) and Lafayette Police Officer Joshua Myers (“Officer Myers”).[4] These motions are opposed by plaintiff George K. Henagan (“Plaintiff” or “Henagan”).[5]The undersigned issues the following report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Considering the evidence, the law, and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons explained below, the Court recommends that the motions before the Court be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff is a homeless citizen of Lafayette Parish who filed the instant suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as corresponding Louisiana constitutional violations.[6]Plaintiff was cited twice for violations of former Lafayette Code § 62-71, a municipal ordinance which prohibited, inter alia, the solicitation of charitable donations or alms from operators of motor vehicles in traffic on a public street.[7]Plaintiff's first citation was issued on November 12, 2020 after officers with the Lafayette Parish Police Department (“LPD”) encountered Henagan near the intersection of West Congress Street and West University Avenue in Lafayette, Louisiana.[8] Plaintiff was cited for violation of § 62-71, specifically “attempting to obtain money from cars in roadway with a sign.”[9] Plaintiff received his second citation for violation of § 62-71 on November 28, 2020 for “holding sign soliciting alms” on a sidewalk near South College Road in Lafayette, Louisiana.[10] In both instances, a charge was filed against Mr. Henagan in Lafayette City Court and subsequently amended to a single count of Simple Obstruction of a Highway in violation of La. R.S. § 14:97.[11] Plaintiff's November 12, 2020 misdemeanor charge was dismissed, but Plaintiff eventually pled no contest to the November 28, 2020 charge, for which he was sentenced to serve thirty (30) days in Lafayette Parish Correctional Center (“LPCC”).[12]
Plaintiff filed the instant suit on November 12, 2021, asserting federal and Louisiana constitutional claims against Mayor Guillory in his individual capacity, Logan in his individual capacity, Chief Morgan in his individual capacity, Officer Myers in his individual capacity, and LCG.[13] Plaintiff's suit seeks damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.[14] Plaintiff's suit presents both facial and as-applied challenges to La. R.S. 14:97 and Laf Ord. §§ 62-32, 62-68, and 62-71.[15]Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.1(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b), Plaintiff's constitutional challenge to La. R.S. § 14:97 was certified by the Court to the Louisiana Attorney General.[16]
Defendants filed the pending motions seeking dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) based on various theories of law. The motions are fully briefed and properly before the undersigned for review. Although the Louisiana Attorney General has not intervened in this suit, an amicus curiae brief was filed on Attorney General Landry's behalf.[17] This Court addresses each motion in turn, below.
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6), the district court must limit itself to the contents of the pleadings, including any attachments and exhibits thereto.[18] The court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.[19] However, conclusory allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact are not accepted as true.[20] Courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”[21]
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”[22] The allegations must be sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” and “the pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.”[23] “While a complaint . . . does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”[24] If the plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to “nudge[ ][his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [his] complaint must be dismissed.”[25]
A claim meets the test for facial plausibility “when the plaintiff pleads the factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”[26] “[D]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”[27]Therefore, “[t]he complaint (1) on its face (2) must contain enough factual matter (taken as true) (3) to raise a reasonable hope or expectation (4) that discovery will reveal relevant evidence of each element of a claim.”[28]
Louisiana courts apply Heck in the same manner as federal courts, finding state law civil actions are precluded when Plaintiff's success on such claims would invalidate the prior conviction.[37] In a Heck analysis, a nolo contendere plea is not used as an admission of guilt but is considered to determine whether Plaintiff's current claims bear upon the validity of the prior conviction arising from the same facts.[38]
Plaintiff's November 12, 2020 arrest and citation resulted in dismissal of the charge as amended. Plaintiff's November 28, 2020 arrest and citation resulted in a nolo contendere plea and subsequent sentence to thirty (30) days in jail. Plaintiff's claims in this suit allege that his arrest on November 12, 2020 violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution, as well as Article I, Section 7 of the Louisiana constitution
For this reason, any purported claims by Plaintiff arising from his November 28, 2020 arrest and subsequent nolo contendere plea are barred by application of the Heck doctrine.[39] Conversely, Plaintiff's November 12, 2020 arrest and citation did not result in a conviction and, thus, does not act as a bar under Heck.[40] This Court will recommend denial of Defendants' motions to dismiss to the extent that such motions seek dismissal based on application of the Heck doctrine as to Plaintiff's November 12, 2020 arrest and citation and will recommend such motions be granted as to any purported claims arising from Plaintiff's November 28, 2020 arrest and citation.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the enactment of laws “abridging the freedom of speech.”[41] A law limiting or prohibiting speech based on its content in a traditional public fora is presumed unconstitutional and justified only when the originating government demonstrates such law is “narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”[42] Laws that target “particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message...
To continue reading
Request your trial