Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't

Decision Date30 January 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 12–1532.
PartiesKane MARCEAUX v. LAFAYETTE CITY–PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Richard Royal Alexander, Shreveport, LA, Stanley Stephen Spring, II, Spring & Spring, John Christopher Alexander, Sr., Alexander Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff.

Michael P. Corry, Hallie Pilcher Coreil, Patrick J. Briney, Richard R. Montgomery, Briney Foret Corry, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant.

JUDGMENT

RICHARD T. HAIK, SR., District Judge.

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick Manna for Report and Recommendation. After an independent review of the record, including the Objections and Reply to Objections, this Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct and adopts the findings and conclusions therein as its own. As such, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The defendants' motion is GRANTED with regard to all of plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, section 1985 conspiracy claims, state-law claims, claims predicated upon alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, and claims predicated upon alleged violations of their due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. These claims are DISMISSED.

2. The defendants motion is GRANTED with regard to the claims asserted against defendants Durel, Stanley, Craft, Alfred, Ted Vincent, Randy Vincent, Firmin, Domingue, Prejean, Prevost, and Gremillion in their official capacities, as well as the claims against the Lafayette City Police Department to the extent it is named as a specific defendant. These claims are DISMISSED.

3. The defendants' motion is GRANTED with regard to the claims asserted against defendants Durel, Firmin, Ted Vincent, Randy Vincent, Domingue, Prejean, Prevost, and Gremillion in their individual capacities. These claims are DISMISSED.

4. The defendants' motion is GRANTED with regard to the claims asserted by plaintiffs Myers, Harding, Sanchez, Polanco, Briscoe, and Roberts. These claims are DISMISSED.

5. The defendants motion is DENIED in all other respects.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PATRICK J. HANNA, United States Magistrate Judge.

Currently pending before the Court is the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Rec. Docs. 5, 64). The motion was referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this Court. The motion is opposed. For the following reasons, it is recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.

Factual Background and Procedural History

This lawsuit was brought by fifteen current or former police officers with the Lafayette police department under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, seeking to recover monetary damages and other relief for alleged acts by their employer and/or fellow city employees that they claim constitutes retaliatory discharge, wrongful discharge, and deprivation of procedural due process in violation of rights protected by the United States Constitution. (Rec. Doc. 74 at ¶ 344). The plaintiffs also seek to recover under Louisiana state law. (Rec. Doc. 74 at ¶ 353). In general, the plaintiffs contend that an alleged “Code of Silence” was imposed by Police Chief Jim Craft, Lafayette City–Parish Consolidated Government Chief Administrative Officer Dee Stanley, and others “in order to maintain control” of the Lafayette Police Department, and that the alleged “Stanley–Craft Organization” “perpetuat[ed] a permanent hostile work environment,” by initiating “bogus internal complaint and bogus internal affairs investigations,” strong-arming witnesses, manipulating statements, and testifying falsely for the purpose of defeating legitimate policies and ultimately seeking the termination of targeted officers who failed to comply with the “Code of Silence.” (Rec. Doc. 74 at ¶¶ 44–48). Thirteen defendants, including the City, the Police Department, and various individual City officials and police officers, all of whom are city employees, are named in the lawsuit. The defendants deny the factual allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint and, in the pending motion, seek dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The plaintiffs' original complaint (Rec. Doc. 1) was thirty-eight pages long and contained 271 numbered paragraphs setting forth a variety of allegations against Craft, Stanley, other defendants, and third parties many of which were controversial. Its filing was extensively covered by the local news media.

The defendants responded to the complaint with a motion to strike the allegedly redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous content of the complaint (Rec. Doc. 4) and, with the instant motion to dismiss, sought dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Rec. Doc. 5). A motion for sanctions (Rec. Doc. 13) and a motion for protective order (Rec. Doc. 18) quickly followed.1

Following a Rule 16 conference held on September 5, 2012 concerning the pending motions, the plaintiffs were afforded an opportunity to amend their complaint. (Rec. Doc. 27). The amended complaint, comprised of fifty-eight pages with 354 numbered paragraphs, added six new plaintiffs and seven new defendants. (Rec. Doc. 74). The defendants supplemented their motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 64) and re-urged their motion to strike. (Rec. Doc. 65).

Following extensive briefing and lengthy oral argument, the defendants' motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part, with the undersigned striking a total of 102 paragraphs, 93 from the original complaint and nine from the amended complaint, as scandalous, immaterial, or impertinent. 2 (Rec. Doc. 77). The pending motion to dismiss has also been briefed extensively, and a lengthy oral argument was held on October 16, 2012. This report and recommendation addresses whether the remainder of the plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, states a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Despite being afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint, the plaintiffs have provided this Court with a very lengthy complaint that is short on substantive allegations which support a cause of action based on existing statutory or constitutional law. The plaintiffs have asserted claims for “money damages” under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, arguing that the defendants have subjected them to retaliatory discharge, deprivation of procedural due process, and wrongful discharge and, in so doing, have infringed their rights protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Rec. Doc. 74 at ¶¶ 1, 344, 352). They have also asserted a conspiracy claim, which they contended at oral argument was based on 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and a claim for injunctive relief. Finally, they have asserted claims “pursuant to the laws of the State of Louisiana, including Civil Code Articles 2315 and 2317 arising from the facts alleged” in the amended complaint. (Rec. Doc. 74 at ¶ 353).

Many of the claims are ambiguous. In some instances, particularly in the original complaint, there is a complete absence of a specific claim, by a specific plaintiff, against a specific defendant. In some articles, only official capacity claims are alleged against the individual defendants, yet in another article individual claims are alleged.3 All of the claims under § 1983 appear to be brought only against the municipality, (Rec. Doc. 74, ¶ 352) yet in the identification of the individual defendants, it appears that there are individual capacity claims brought as well. (Rec. Doc. 74 ¶¶ D–7–D–G). Finally, there is no reference to particular state law causes of action beyond reference to the “laws of the State of Louisiana, including Civil Code Articles 2315 and 2317....” (Rec. Doc. 74, ¶¶ C.4, 353). These problems were exacerbated rather than cured by the amendment; consequently, this Court sees nothing to be gained by allowing another amendment.

In support of their motion to dismiss, the defendants contend (1) that plaintiffs Hewitt, Briscoe, and Harding failed to state any claim whatsoever; (2) that plaintiffs Marceaux, Cormier, Poiencot, Myers, Thompson, and Stelly have not stated a claim for § 1983 retaliation by a municipality; (3) that plaintiffs Marceaux, Cormier, Poiencot, Myers, Thompson, and Stelly have not stated a claim for § 1983 supervisor liability; (4) that plaintiffs Marceaux, Cormier, Poiencot, Myers, Thompson, and Stelly have not stated a claim for § 1983 discrimination; (5) that the plaintiffs have not stated a due process claim under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments; (6) that the plaintiffs have not stated First Amendment claims; (7) that the plaintiffs have not stated Fourth Amendment claims; (8) that the plaintiffs have not stated a claim for injunctive relief; (9) that many of the plaintiffs' claims have prescribed; (10) that, per La. Const. Art. X § 12, the Lafayette Fire and Police Civil Service Board has exclusive jurisdiction over “employment related matters;” (11) that plaintiffs Sanchez, Polanco, Joseph, Ceaser, Taylor, and Roberts have not established constitutional violations; (12) that the plaintiffs have not stated state-law causes of action; and (13) that the plaintiffs have not stated a conspiracy cause of action. The plaintiffs oppose the motion in all respects.

In order to best address the issues in a logical fashion, the analysis contained in this report will be divided into seven categories: (1) the appropriate legal standard; (2) the § 1983 elements applicable to the municipal entities and officials to determine if there is any type of claim alleged against each of the defendants; (3) the Constitutional violations cited as the bases for the claims of the plaintiffs to determine if any plaintiff has any claim against the remaining defendants; (...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Douglas v. O'Neal, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-00808
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • August 23, 2018
    ...conspiracies to "depriv[e] . . . any person or class of persons the equal protection of the laws." Marceaux v. Lafayette City-ParishConsol. Gov., 921 F.Supp.2d 605, 642 (W.D. La. 2013) (citing Montoya v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 149 (5th Cir. 2010)). "In the Fifth Ci......
  • Myles v. Georgia Bar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • September 22, 2021
    ...court or testifying, punish witnesses who have so attended or testified, or injure jurors, all of which are inapplicable. Marceaux, 921 F.Supp.2d at 643. [52] Marceaux, 921 F.Supp.2d 643. [53] Marceaux, 921 F.Supp.2d at 643. [54] Cohran, 790 F.Supp. at 1575. [55] “The Judicial power of the ......
  • Thomas v. Creuzot
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • December 29, 2022
    ... ... with civil rights. Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish ... Consol. Gov't , 921 ... ...
  • Frazier v. City of Kaplan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • June 4, 2019
    ...The Fifth Amendment applies to federal actors; the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state actors. Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov't, 921 F.Supp.2d 605, 631 (W.D. La. 2013). Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations regarding any federal actor, and Plaintiff asser......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT