Tutrix ex rel. DCJH v. Travis
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-680-JWD-RLB |
| Parties | Armis Harris TUTRIX ON BEHALF OF her minor child DCJH v. Jeff TRAVIS, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Carol D. Powell Lexing, Law Office of Carol D. Powell Lexing, Monroe, LA, Benjamin L. Crump, Pro Hac Vice, Ben Crump Law, PLLC, Tallahassee, FL, for Armis Harris Tutrix on Behalf of Her Minor Child DCJH.
Mary G. Erlingson, Ashley Michelle Caruso, Lee J. Ledet, Erlingson Banks, PLLC, Baton Rouge, LA, for Jeff Travis, Glen Sims, Sr.
RULING AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) filed by Defendants Sheriff Jeff Travis ("Sheriff Travis"), Deputy Houston Frazee ("Deputy Frazee" or "Frazee"), and Deputy Glen Sims ("Deputy Sims" or "Sims") (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff Armis Harris, Tutrix on behalf of her minor child, DCJH ("Plaintiff"), opposes the motion. (Doc. 43.) Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. 44.) Oral argument is not necessary. The Court has carefully considered the law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
This civil rights action arises from a shooting involving law enforcement that occurred in East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana and resulted in the death of Christopher Whitfield ("Decedent" or "Whitfield"). (See Doc. 33.) The following factual allegations are taken from the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Damages ("Amended Complaint"). (Id. ) They are assumed to be true for purposes of this motion. Thompson v. City of Waco , 764 F.3d 500, 502–03 (5th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of her minor child, DCJH; DCJH is also the minor child of Whitfield. (Doc. 33 at ¶ 5.) Defendants are Jeff Travis, the Sheriff of East Feliciana Parish; Glen Sims, an East Feliciana Parish Sheriff's Office Deputy; and Houston Frazee, an East Feliciana Parish Sheriff's Office Deputy. (Id. at ¶¶ 6–7.)1
On October 14, 2019, at 1:50 a.m., the East Feliciana Parish emergency communications dispatch received a call that a security alarm went off at a convenience store in Ethel, Louisiana. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Deputies Sims and Frazee were dispatched to the store. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
Frazee was the first to arrive on-scene, where he observed Whitfield leaving the area. (Id. ) Frazee ordered Whitfield to stop moving, but Whitfield started running. (Id. ) As Sims pulled up to the scene, Whitfield continued running past his patrol car. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Sims then exited his patrol car with his firearm drawn. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Sims observed Frazee with his firearm drawn running after Whitfield while commanding Whitfield to stop. (Id. ) As Whitfield continued running from the Deputies, Sims fired two shots at Whitfield, striking Whitfield in the right mid-back. (Id. ) Whitfield died at the scene. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
According to the Amended Complaint:
Decedent Whitfield did nothing to justify Deputy SIMS conduct. Whitfield did not have any weapons in his hands; there was no struggle with the deputies; he did not reasonably pose a threat to Deputy SIMS or anyone else because he was running away from the officers with his back to the deputies that would justify the use of deadly force on a fleeing victim. The deputies had no cause to believe that the decedent posed a threat of serious physical harm because SIMS stated in his narrative report that "when he caught up to him, he placed his hand on Whitfield's back, then brought his firearm upward to holster." Deputy SIMS[’] use of force was clearly unreasonable; namely, Deputy FRAZEE who was also present on the scene did not feel the need to fire a single shot.
(Id. at ¶ 36.) The Amended Complaint further states that Sims’ use of excessive force against Whitfield was a violation of the East Feliciana Parish Sheriff's Office's ("EFPSO") policy prohibiting use of unnecessary force or violence. (Id. at ¶ 44.)
Plaintiff asserts that Frazee and Sims "fabricated a completely false account of the shooting/killing of decedent Whitfield." (Id. ¶ 32.) In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges:
In SIMS’[ ] East Feliciana Sheriff's Office narrative report dated October 16, 2019, he made a ... false statement in an attempt to justify the shooting of decedent Whitfield that his firearm fired cartridge case was still chambered and that a malfunction must have occurred. However, on October 25, 2019, Forensic Scientist Chelsee Richardson released a scientific analysis report that "the firearms examination showed that no malfunctions were observed on the firearm and that the bullets recovered from decedent Whitfield's body at autopsy and the cartridge cases both matched the rugger p-94 of Deputy Sims."
(Id. ) Plaintiff further alleges that Frazee falsely stated he saw Sims catch up with Whitfield, even though Whitfield "was farther ahead of both Frazee and Sims when Sims got out of his car and started chasing Whitfield. (Id. at ¶ 34.) Additionally, Sims and Frazee fabricated that Whitfield was holding something in his hand while running. (Id. at ¶ 35.) Yet this version of events is contradicted by the convenience store's surveillance footage, Plaintiff avers, which captured Whitfield running from the Deputies with nothing in his hand. (See id. at ¶¶ 30, 35.)
Plaintiff makes allegations against Sheriff Travis that reflect on Sims’ background and purported propensity for violence. (Id. ¶¶ 37–44.) Specifically, the Amended Complaint details Sims’ "legacy of prior complaints and a prior disciplinary history involving assault[ ] and battery on others while employed by the [EFPSO] dating back to 1992-2016." (Id. at ¶ 37.) The Amended Complaint also cites to an excessive force incident involving another EFPSO deputy. (See id. at ¶¶ 45, 47.)
Plaintiff claims that the EFPSO "had a custom of firing and hiring individuals with dangerous propensities," such as Sims (id. at ¶ 38), and that Sheriff Travis "failed to adopt a policy against the rehiring of" such individuals (id. at ¶ 40). Despite his knowledge of Sims’ history, Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Travis took no steps "to train, supervise, or monitor" Sims, ultimately leading to Whitfield's death. (Id. at ¶ 43.) Plaintiff further alleges various EFPSO policies, practices, and customs that Sheriff Travis ordered or otherwise acquiesced in constitute "a pattern of constitutional violations" by deliberate plan, deliberate indifference, or gross negligence. (Id. at 20, ¶ 46.)
On August 9, 2020, Plaintiff, on behalf of her minor child DCJH, filed the Amended Complaint, asserting a wrongful death and survival action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Travis, Frazee, and Sims. (See Doc. 33.) Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities. (Id. at ¶¶ 6–7.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts claims for excessive force in violation of Whitfield's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. (Id. at ¶¶ 49–57.) Plaintiff similarly claims that Defendants violated Whitfield's right to be free from excessive force under Article I, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution. (Id. at ¶ 58.) Additionally, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for assault, battery, negligence, and respondeat superior under Louisiana law. (See Doc. 33 at 23–28.) Defendants now move for dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.
"Federal pleading rules call for a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ; they do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted." Johnson v. City of Shelby , 574 U.S. 10, 11, 135 S.Ct. 346, 190 L.Ed.2d 309 (2014) (citation omitted).
Interpreting Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Fifth Circuit has explained:
The 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. "Asking for [such] plausible grounds to infer [the element of a claim] does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal [that the elements of the claim existed]."
Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc. , 565 F.3d 228, 257 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).
Applying the above case law, the Western District of Louisiana has stated:
Therefore, while the court is not to give the "assumption of truth" to conclusions, factual allegations remain so entitled. Once those factual allegations are identified, drawing on the court's judicial experience and common sense, the analysis is whether those facts, which need not be detailed or specific, allow "the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." [ Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ;] Twombly , 55[0] U.S. at 556 . This analysis is not substantively different from that set forth in Lormand, supra , nor does this jurisprudence foreclose the option that discovery must be undertaken in order to raise relevant information to support an element of the claim. The standard, under the specific language of Fed. Rule Civ. P. 8(a)(2), remains that the defendant be given adequate notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it is based. The standard is met by the "reasonable inference" the court must make that, with or without discovery, the facts set forth a plausible claim for relief under a particular theory of law provided there is a "reasonable expectation" that "discovery will reveal relevant evidence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial