Poche v. Gautreaux

• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: BRIAN A. JACKSON
• Citation: Poche v. Gautreaux, 973 F. Supp. 2d 658 (M.D. La. 2013)
• Decision Date: 17 September 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10–450–BAJ–RLB.
• Parties: Melissa POCHE v. Sid GAUTREAUX, et al.

973 F.Supp.2d 658

Melissa POCHE

v.Sid GAUTREAUX, et al.

Civil Action No. 10–450–BAJ–RLB.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Sept. 17, 2013.

Charles R. Moore, Stephen Layne Lee, Moore, Thompson & Lee, APLC, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff.

Alfred Paul LeBlanc, Jr., Shelton Dennis Blunt, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Allison Miller Rutzen, Baton Rouge, LA, Timothy R. Richardson, Freeman Rudolph Matthews, Jason Paul Wixom, Usry, Weeks & Matthews, APLC, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant.

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON, Chief Judge.

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss, filed by Defendants East Baton Rouge (“EBR”) District Attorney Hillar Moore (the “District Attorney”) (Doc. 42), and EBR Sheriff Sid Gautreaux and Warden Dennis Grimes (the “Prison Officials”) (Doc. 43), seeking orders from this Court dismissing Plaintiff Melissa Poche's (“Poche”) Revised and Abridged First Amended and Restated Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ¹ Poche opposes both motions (Docs. 47 and 48). The Defendants have each filed a memorandum in response to Poche's memoranda in opposition. (Docs. 51 and 54). Oral argument is not necessary.

I. Background

Poche filed her original Complaint against Defendants in July 2010 alleging various constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, statutory violations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), as well as state law claims, all related to her alleged unlawful detention for seven months. (Doc. 1 at 2). Later, in June 2011, Poche was allowed to file the Revised and Abridged First Amended and Restated Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) that is the subject of this order. (Doc. 37). As did her original complaint, Poche's Amended Complaint seeks damages for various constitutional violations under § 1983, statutory violations under the ADA and RA, and false imprisonment and negligence under Louisiana state law. (Doc. 38 at ¶ ¶ 56–95).

Accepting as true all of the “well-pleaded facts,” see Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted), Poche's complaint makes out the following: Poche is an uninterdicted mentally ill female currently residing in a nursing facility. (Doc. 38 at ¶ 1). Poche suffers from various mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and “organic brain disorder.” ( Id. at ¶ 9). Further, Poche's IQ is 73, “which classifies her as having borderline mental deficiency.” ( Id.). At all relevant times, Poche's “deficiencies were ... readily apparent and obvious to any reasonable observer.” ( Id.).

On July 22, 2009, when Poche was 54 years old, she engaged in “bizarre and irrational behavior” at a Baton Rouge area convenience store, causing a store employee to call the EBR Sheriffs Department. ( Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11). The Sheriff was already well-aware of Poche's “debilitating mental condition,” having responded to “several instances of bizarre behavior” by Poche in the preceding weeks, including her report that she was “raped on July 10 with bizarre circumstances surrounding the report of rape.” ( Id. at ¶ 10). When Sheriffs Deputies arrived at the convenience store, they found Poche “wandering across the street.” ( Id. at 11). However, Poche “walked away” from the Deputies when they approached, causing the Deputies to “manhandle her,” and “prompting [Poche] in her irrational state to try to wrestle away.” ( Id. at 11).

As a result of this altercation, Poche was arrested and charged with misdemeanor counts for: (1) disturbing the peace; (2) remaining after forbidden; and (3) resisting arrest. ( Id.). Poche was also charged with a fourth count, “an old misdemeanor charge for $93.28 in checks that [she] had allegedly bounced in 2006,” but had since paid off. ( Id.). Following her arrest, Poche was placed in the custody of the Prison Officials at the EBR Prison. ( Id. at ¶ 12).

The Prison Officials did not bring Poche before a magistrate to determine whether probable cause supported her arrest. ( Id. ¶ 18). In fact, during her entire seven months in prison, Poche's only court appearance occurred on July 23, the day after her arrest. ( Id. at ¶ 15). At this proceeding, Poche and “a large group of other prisoners” appeared “by video link before an unelected court commissioner who was not a judge.” ( Id. at ¶ 15). Poche alleges that the “sole purpose” of this “jail callout” procedure was “to set bond pursuant to a preset bail schedule.” ( Id.). Poche did not receive a probable cause determination, ( id. at ¶ 18), nor was she asked if she had counsel, or offered counsel. ( Id.). Indeed, Poche claims that throughout her time in custody she was never brought before a judge for the purpose of appointment of counsel, ( id. at ¶ 34), despite Louisiana law which requires that such a hearing occur within “seventy-two hours from the time of the arrest,” La. C. Cr. P. Ann. art. 230.1. (Doc. 38 at ¶ 15). Poche asserts that the Prison Officials' failures to bring her before a magistrate for a probable cause determination, and before a judge for appointment of counsel, were the result of official policies and established customs to instead “place arrestees [in] a ‘jail callout’ procedure before a non-judge,” knowing full-well that “the purpose of such procedure was not for [a probable cause determination or] the assignment of counsel,” and, further, that “attorneys were in fact routinely not assigned to defendants during such ‘jail callout’ procedures.” ( Id. at ¶¶ 16, 17–20).

On August 18, almost a month after her arrest, the Prison Officials forwarded Poche's file to the District Attorney. ( Id. at ¶ 22). Attached to the front of Poche's file was a “so-called ‘green sheet,’ ” ( id.), a form used by the District Attorney and his employees to quickly identify the charges on which a detainee is being held, and to determine whether and how to proceed with the prosecution, ( see id. at ¶ 25). However, while Poche's file itself “listed and described all four of the charges brought [against her] by the deputies,” Poche's green sheet “listed [just] one of the four charges against [her], namely Resisting an Officer.” ( Id. at ¶ 22). Poche alleges that the Prison Officials', and/or District Attorney's failure to properly fill out Poche's green sheet was the result of lax training and improper oversight. ( Id. at ¶¶ 23–26).

Upon receiving Poche's file and reviewing her green sheet, the Assistant District Attorney assigned to Poche's case, Kory Tauzin (“Tauzin”), “rapidly decided to drop all of the charges against [her].” ( Id. at ¶¶ 23, 27). Accordingly, on August 25, “[Tauzin] checked ‘No Bill’ ... because ‘Police Action Sufficient” on the cover of Poche's file. ( Id. at ¶ 27). “The DA's computerized records further showed ... ‘No Bill–Police Action Sufficient’ for all four charges.” ( Id.). Tauzin also “wrote ‘N/B–PAS' on the green sheet.” ( Id.) “The DA's office then ‘Dead Filed’ the record, considering the case closed.” ( Id.).

Unfortunately for Ms. Poche, this message was not properly conveyed to the Prison Officials. Instead, Poche alleges that due to inadequate policies, lax training and insufficient oversight, the “secretarial personnel” that prepared Poche's “Authority to Change Booking” form—the form required to authorize the Prison Officials to release Poche from custody—“listed only one of the four charges against her.” ( Id. at ¶¶ 28–30). Poche claims that Tauzin signed off on the form as written “without checking the booking form against the file to assure that all intended charges [were] included”—again, due to lax training and insufficient oversight. ( Id. at ¶ 29). As a result, upon receipt of the signed booking form, the Prison Officials “did not release [Poche] from prison, apparently believing there were still pending charges against her.” ( Id. at ¶ 28).

Poche further asserts that the District Attorney never followed up with the Prison Officials to ensure that she was released after the charges against her were dropped. ( Id. at ¶ 30). Nor did the PrisonOfficials check Poche's “Authority to Change Booking” form against her file or her computerized record to determine whether it was accurate and complete. ( Id. at ¶¶ 32–33). Instead, Poche claims that due to “poor policies and customs,” which included lax training and insufficient oversight, the Prison Officials “continue[d] to hold [Poche] in prison, without question and without attempting any communication whatsoever with the District Attorney's office to determine the Assistant District Attorney's intent concerning [Poche's] release,” despite having received “a booking form ... that list[ed] some but not all of the charges pending.” ( Id. at ¶¶ 32–33). Poche alleges that the Prison Officials' and District Attorney's failure to properly fill out her paperwork, coupled with their failure to effectively communicate between offices, caused Poche to languish in prison “for seven months, until February of 2010, with no charges pending against her, with no appearance before a judge or magistrate, with no determination of probable cause, with no attorney offered to her or appointed for her, and with no one doing anything about her case.” ( Id. at ¶ 34).

Poche's situation was compounded by “her mental disabilities and deficiencies,” which rendered her unable to advocate effectively on her own behalf without the benefit of counsel. ( Id.). However, not all EBR Prison employees were unaware of and/or indifferent to Poche's plight. Indeed, Poche alleges that on September 23, 2009, “the issue of [her] improper confinement without charges was specifically brought to the attention of the EBR District Attorney's office by a social worker at the EBR Prison.” ( Id. at ¶ 35). Unfortunately, the District Attorney failed to act on this information because he never received it. ( Id. at ¶¶ 35–36). Poche contends that the District Attorney did not get the message due to ...