Singleton v. Cannizzaro

• Decision Date: 28 February 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO: 17-10721
• Parties: Renata SINGLETON et al. v. Leon CANNIZZARO et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

372 F.Supp.3d 389

Renata SINGLETON et al.

v.Leon CANNIZZARO et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 17-10721

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed February 28, 2019

Bruce W. Hamilton, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New Orleans, LA, Katherine Ashworth Chamblee-Ryan, Pro Hac Vice, Alec George Karakatsanis, Civil Rights Corps, Somil Bharat Trivedi, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, Anna Marie Arceneaux, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Captial Punishment, Durham, NC, Mariana Louise Kovel, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Michael Steven Blume, Pro Hac Vice, Venable LLP, New York, NY, for Renata Singleton et al.

Richard C. Stanley, Matthew J. Paul, W. Raley Alford, III, Stanley, Reuter, Ross, Thornton & Alford, LLC, Robert L. Freeman, Jr., Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, New Orleans, LA, Thomas Jeffrey Barbera, Barbera Law Firm, Metairie, LA, for Leon Cannizzaro et al.

SECTION: "H"

ORDER AND REASONS

JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 63). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART .

BACKGROUND

At its core, this lawsuit alleges that the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office unlawfully compelled victims and witnesses of crimes to cooperate with prosecutors. Those who failed to comply with prosecutors' requests were allegedly threatened, harassed, and, in some cases, jailed. Plaintiffs in this case include eight people—victims of and witnesses to crimes—and an organization that advocates on behalf of crime victims.

The primary tool that prosecutors allegedly used to compel cooperation was a document manufactured by the District Attorney’s Office ("DA’s Office") to look like a court-ordered subpoena that was, in fact, nothing more than an invitation by prosecutors to meet with them outside of court. Prosecutors often threatened witnesses with jail time for failure to comply with these "subpoenas."¹ Because the "subpoenas" were not actually approved by a judge, but instead were engineered by prosecutors, the documents did not give anyone the authority to fine or jail witnesses who failed to appear. Nevertheless, prosecutors often followed up on their threats by asking judges to jail witnesses on material witness warrants.²

The Plaintiffs allege that the DA’s Office operated this system for years, and it was not until The Lens published an exposé about the issue in the spring of 2017 that the practice became widely known.³ Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro and his office faced intense public criticism after the practice was publicly exposed.⁴ Armed with knowledge of the alleged scheme, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in this Court on October 17, 2017.⁵ A few months later, on January 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.⁶ Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief for alleged violations of federal and state law by the Defendants. The federal claims include violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Louisiana state law claims include allegations of abuse of process and fraud.

The Plaintiffs in this suit include Renata Singleton, Marc Mitchell, Lazonia Baham, Jane Doe, Tiffany LaCroix, Fayona Bailey, John Roe, and Silence is Violence ("SIV"), a non-profit victim advocacy group based in Orleans Parish. The Defendants, all prosecutors at the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, include Cannizzaro, First Assistant District Attorney Graymond Martin, Assistant District Attorney and Chief of Trials David Pipes, and Assistant District Attorneys Iain Dover, Jason Napoli, Arthur Mitchell, Tiffany Tucker, Michael Trummel, Matthew Hamilton, Inga Petrovich, Laura Rodrigue, Sarah Dawkins, and John Doe.⁷ For context, the allegations underlying the claims of each of the Plaintiffs are described below.

Plaintiff Renata Singleton was the victim in a domestic violence incident in 2014 involving her ex-boyfriend, Vernon Crossley. Singleton alleges that the DA’s Office sent her two "subpoenas" after she told a victim-witness advocate that she did not want to pursue charges against Crossley or participate in any prosecution of him. Acting on the advice of a friend in law enforcement who told Singleton she had not been properly served because the "subpoenas" were left at her door, Singleton did not comply with the requests in the "subpoenas." In response, Defendant ADA Mitchell sought a material witness warrant for Singleton. A judge granted Mitchell’s request, and Singleton spent five days in jail on a $ 100,000 bond before ultimately being released.

Plaintiff Marc Mitchell was shot in 2014 while playing basketball with his nephews. He testified against Jonterry Bernard, the shooter. Bernard was convicted on a charge of attempted murder and sentenced to prison. The DA’s Office also charged another man, Gerard Gray, with attempted murder in the shooting on the theory that Gray ordered Bernard to shoot Mitchell. In multiple meetings with prosecutors, Mitchell told the prosecutors that he did not know whether Gray ordered Bernard to shoot him. According to Mitchell, prosecutors continued to question him about his recollection of the events leading up to the shooting. Mitchell ultimately quit cooperating with the prosecutors, and ADA Trummel and ADA Hamilton worked together to have a material witness warrant issued for Mitchell’s arrest. Police arrested Mitchell in the lobby of the hotel where he worked, and he spent a day in jail on a $ 50,000 bond before being released.

Plaintiff Lazonia Baham was wanted for questioning by the DA’s office in the 2013 killing of her daughter’s boyfriend. Baham alleges that prosecutors wanted her to testify that she saw Isaac Jones, the defendant in the murder case, near the scene of the murder. She repeatedly told prosecutors that she only saw Jones near her house, not near the murder scene. Baham ultimately stopped taking calls from the DA’s office, and ADA Napoli sought a material witness warrant for her arrest. Police arrested Baham a few days after Christmas Day in 2015 while she was sick. She spent a total of eight days jailed on the warrant before being released.

Plaintiff Jane Doe was the victim of molestation of a juvenile and child pornography. Doe alleges that the DA’s Office in 2016 delivered a "subpoena" to her home demanding that she appear at their office to meet with prosecutors. Doe ultimately complied with their request after ADA Dover allegedly threatened Doe at her high school and later arrived in court with a material witness warrant application threatening to jail Doe.

Plaintiffs Fayona Bailey and Tiffany LaCroix were potential witnesses in different murder cases who allegedly received "subpoenas" from the DA’s Office. Both ultimately hired a lawyer to challenge the "subpoenas," and their challenges were successful. Plaintiffs allege that ADA Petrovich sent the "subpoena" to Bailey around March 2017, and that ADA Rodrigue sent the "subpoena" to LaCroix in November 2016.

Plaintiff John Roe was attacked with a rifle in January 2016, and Roe’s friend was murdered the next day. Police identified Michael Young as the suspect in both the attack on Roe and the murder of Roe’s friend. Investigators questioned Roe about the incidents, and he cooperated with them. Although Roe provided police with his contact information at the time, he later moved and changed his phone number. Numerous subpoenas were sent to Roe’s former address, but he alleges that he did not receive them. Nevertheless, Roe alleges that he was "not difficult to find" at the time because he maintains a Facebook account under his name.⁸ Having failed to reach Roe, ADA Dawkins in August 2017 applied for a material witness warrant seeking Roe’s arrest. A judge granted the request, and Roe spent three days in jail before being released.

Plaintiff SIV alleges that it has been threatened by Cannizzaro on multiple occasions and that it has been forced to alter the focus of its organizational mission—from generally advocating for victims of violent crime to protecting those same victims from zealous prosecutors—because of the DA’s Office’s use of "subpoenas" and other intimidating tactics.

On March 1, 2018, the Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the claims of all Plaintiffs under Rule 12(b)(6).⁹ The Defendants argue first that many of the Individual Defendants enjoy absolute immunity for the claims asserted against them. To the extent that any of the Individual Defendants' conduct is not absolutely immune from civil suit, Defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity. Defendants further argue that many claims are prescribed, and finally, for any remaining claims, that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs oppose. Oral argument was held before this Court on May 9, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough facts to "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."¹⁰ A claim is "plausible on its face" when the pleaded facts allow the court to "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."¹¹ A court must accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and must "draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor."¹² A court need not, however, accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.¹³ To be legally sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a "sheer possibility" that the plaintiff’s claims are true.¹⁴ If it is apparent from the face of the complaint that an insurmountable bar to relief exists and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, the court must dismiss the claim.¹⁵

LAW AND ANALYSIS

This Court will first address the extent to which the Individual Defendants enjoy absolute immunity from federal law claims by Plaintiffs other than SIV before turning to whether any of the remaining federal claims by...