Lefebure v. Boeker

• Decision Date: 25 June 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION 17-1791-SDD-EWD
• Citation: 390 F.Supp.3d 729
• Parties: Priscilla LEFEBURE v. Barrett BOEKER, Assistant Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, individually and in his official capacity, West Feliciana Parish, Samuel D. D'Aquilla, 20th Judicial District, individually and in his official capacity, District Attorney, J. Austin Daniel, Sheriff, West Feliciana Parish, Insurance Co. Does 1-5, Does 6-20
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

390 F.Supp.3d 729

Priscilla LEFEBURE

v.Barrett BOEKER, Assistant Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, individually and in his official capacity, West Feliciana Parish, Samuel D. D'Aquilla, 20th Judicial District, individually and in his official capacity, District Attorney, J. Austin Daniel, Sheriff, West Feliciana Parish, Insurance Co. Does 1-5, Does 6-20

CIVIL ACTION 17-1791-SDD-EWD

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Signed June 25, 2019

Jack Rutherford, Rutherford Law, New Orleans, LA, John Nelson Adcock, Law Offices of John N. Adcock, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff.

Lee J. Ledet, Erlinson Banks, PLLC, Baton Rouge, LA, C. Jerome D'Aquila, New Roads, LA, Ralph R. Alexis, III, Porteous, Hainkel and Johnson, LLP, New Orleans, LA, Craig Frank Holthaus, C. Frank Holthaus, Baton Rouge, LA, Glenn Brozman Adams, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson - NO, Thomas Allen Usry, Usry, Weeks & Matthews - NO, James Bryan Mullaly, Usry & Weeks, PLC, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants.

RULING AND ORDER

CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss¹ filed by Defendant, Samuel C. D'Aquilla, individually and in his official capacity as District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District, State of Louisiana ("Defendant" or "the DA"), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff, Priscilla Lefebure ("Plaintiff" or "Lefebure"), filed an Opposition² to this motion, to which Defendant filed a Reply.³ The Court heard Oral Argument on this motion on March 25, 2019, and granted in part and denied in part the DA's motion, with detailed written reasons to be assigned.⁴ For the reasons which follow, the Court has granted in part and denied in part the DA's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a Complaint⁵ and First Amended Complaint⁶ seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 and under Louisiana law against Barrett Boeker ("Boeker"), Assistant Warden at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, individually and in his official capacity, West Feliciana Parish;⁷ Samuel C. D'Aquilla, District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District, individually and in his official capacity; J. Austin Daniel, Sheriff, West Feliciana Parish ("Sheriff Daniel"); and various unknown insurance companies and unknown defendants.

At the outset, the Court recognizes that the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and First Amended Complaint are disturbing and presented in vivid detail. At this stage of the matter, this Court is charged with accepting the pled facts as true. The Court also notes that this matter, as pled, is factually unique to the body of cases implicated by the alleged claims, defenses, and the instant motion. While the claims, defenses, and arguments raised are not new to this Court, the law as applied to the facts alleged is largely uncharted in this Circuit.

Plaintiff claims that, on December 1, 2016, Boeker raped her at his home on the grounds of the Louisiana State Penitentiary.⁸ Plaintiff claims that Boeker sexually assaulted her a second time on December 3, 2016.⁹ Plaintiff had a rape kit administered and completed on December 8, 2016, at Woman's Hospital in Baton Rouge.¹⁰ Plaintiff alleges that the report on the rape kit noted bruising in the pattern of fingers and hand prints and a red, irritated cervix. Photographs were taken.¹¹ Plaintiff pleads disturbing facts and circumstances of the alleged rape and sexual assault, the rape kit findings, and her alleged damages.¹²

Boeker was arrested for second degree rape on December 20, 2016; however, he was never indicted or convicted.¹³ Plaintiff alleges she was denied equal protection and due process under the law as a result of the failure of the DA and Sheriff Daniel to investigate Boeker's alleged crimes and obtain the rape kit, which Plaintiff claims demonstrates a conspiracy to protect Boeker. Plaintiff also claims her constitutional right have been violated by the DA and Sheriff Daniel's alleged policy of disproportionate treatment of women and sexual assault victims.

Prior to the grand jury hearing, Plaintiff avers that neither the DA nor Sheriff Daniel requested, picked-up, or examined her rape kit.¹⁴ Thus, the rape kit along with the photographic evidence contained therein did not become a part of the DA's investigative file and was never presented to the grand jury. Plaintiff also claims that, prior to the grand jury hearing, the DA did not interview or speak to Plaintiff because, according to DA in a public statement, he was "uncomfortable" doing so.¹⁵ Plaintiff further claims that the DA marked up his file copy of the police report to point out purported discrepancies in Plaintiff's description of the events and pointedly noted "plead 5^th" on the police report.¹⁶ Because it comprised part of the DA's investigatory file, the annotated and underlined police report was presented to the grand jury. Plaintiff also alleges that the DA colluded with the Sheriff to not investigate her rape claim.¹⁷ The gravamen of the Plaintiff's Complaint is that the DA worked in concert with the Sherriff to significantly curtail the thoroughness of the investigative process in order to manipulate the grand jury outcome.

On December 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action against Boeker, the DA, and Sheriff Daniel seeking to hold them individually and jointly liable for damages resulting from the alleged rape, sexual assault, and what Plaintiff alleges as the lack of investigation into her criminal complaints against Boeker. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.¹⁸ In Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ,¹⁹ Plaintiff asserted the following causes of action adverse to the following Defendants: (1) violation of the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 3 (Right to Individual Dignity) adverse to District Attorney D'Aquilla and Sheriff Daniel in their individual and official capacities;²⁰ (2) violation of the 14th Amendment (Substantive Due Process) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 2 (Due Process) adverse to District Attorney D'Aquilla and Sheriff Daniel in their individual and official capacities;²¹ (3) Civil Conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 adverse to all Defendants;²² (4) Abuse of Process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 adverse to all Defendants;²³ (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Rape, and Sexual Battery under Louisiana State Law adverse to Defendant Boeker;²⁴ and (6) Direct Action Claims under Louisiana State Law adverse to all Defendant unknown insurance companies.²⁵

In the motion before this Court, the DA seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on her substantive federal and state law claims. Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's motion, arguing that she has demonstrated Article III standing, that Defendant is not entitled to any immunity, and she has sufficiently and specifically pled plausible causes of action adverse to Defendant.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss

"When a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction ‘is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.’ "²⁶ If a complaint could be dismissed for both lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, "the court should dismiss only on the jurisdictional ground under [ Rule] 12(b)(1), without reaching the question of failure to state a claim under [ Rule] 12(b)(6)."²⁷ The reason for this rule is to preclude courts from issuing advisory opinions and barring courts without jurisdiction "from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice."²⁸

"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is analyzed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)."²⁹ Therefore, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.³⁰ Ultimately, "[t]he burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Accordingly, the plaintiff constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist."³¹

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is characterized as either a "facial" attack, i.e. , the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction, or as a "factual" attack, i.e. , the facts in the complaint supporting subject matter jurisdiction are questioned.³² As in this case, when a defendant files a Rule 12(b)(1) motion without accompanying evidence it is analyzed as a facial attack³³ In a facial attack, allegations in the complaint are taken as true.³⁴

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the "court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."³⁵ The Court may consider "the complaint, its proper attachments, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice."³⁶ "To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ "³⁷ In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , the United States Supreme Court set forth the basic criteria necessary for a complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.³⁸ "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 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."³⁹ A complaint is...