Velazquez v. City of Westwego

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 20-2332
• Citation: 531 F.Supp.3d 1142
• Parties: Tatiana Marie VELAZQUEZ v. CITY OF WESTWEGO, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

531 F.Supp.3d 1142

Tatiana Marie VELAZQUEZ

v.CITY OF WESTWEGO, et al.

CIVIL ACTION No. 20-2332

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed March 31, 2021

Cesar Roberto Burgos, Gabriel Omar Mondino, George M. McGregor, Jr., Robert J. Daigre, Burgos & Associates, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Tatiana Marie Velazquez.

Thomas P. Anzelmo, Christopher David James-Lomax, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, McDaniel & Welch, New Orleans, LA, for Westwego City, Dwayne J. Munch, Sr., Kyle Flettrich.

Erin Bridget Wheeler, Louisiana Department of Justice, New Orleans, LA, for Louisiana State, Amanda Cailleteau, Britney Young.

SECTION I

ORDER & REASONS

LANCE M. AFRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Tatiana Marie Velazquez ("Velazquez") was arrested at the Office of Motor Vehicles in Westwego, Louisiana for possessing a fraudulent passport, after the U.S. Passport Verification System ("USPVS") returned a "No Match" result on her valid U.S. passport. On August 21, 2020, Velazquez sued the following defendants: the City of Westwego (the "City"), Dwayne J. Munch, Sr. in his official capacity ("Chief Munch"), and Kyle Flettrich in his individual and official capacities ("Flettrich" and, together with Chief Munch and the City, the "City Defendants"), as well as the State of Louisiana via the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Public Safety Services, Office of Motor Vehicles (the "OMV"), Amanda Cailleteau in her individual and official capacities ("Cailleteau"), and Britney Young in her individual and official capacities ("Young" and, together with the OMV and Cailleteau, the "State Defendants"). Velazquez asserts a number of claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as Louisiana state law.

Each set of defendants has filed a motion to dismiss,¹ arguing that Velazquez's allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief and should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).² The State Defendants have also moved to dismiss Velazquez's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that sovereign immunity bars Velazquez from securing a judgment against the OMV and its employees (in their official capacities).³ For the reasons that follow, the motions are granted.⁴

I.

Velazquez was born and spent most of her life in Puerto Rico.⁵ On or about August 22, 2019, she visited the OMV's Westwego office to obtain a Louisiana driver's license.⁶ She presented her U.S. passport, social security card, a copy of her Puerto Rican driver's license, and other Puerto Rican identification documents to Cailleteau, an OMV employee.⁷

Cailleteau attempted to verify the authenticity of Velazquez's U.S. passport through the USPVS, an online service provided by a non-governmental third-party vendor, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators ("AAMVA").⁸ But when Cailleteau entered the passport number into the system, she received a "No Match" response.⁹

Critically, while a "No Match" response means that a passport cannot be verified using the system, it does not indicate that the passport is fraudulent.¹⁰ AAMVA policies and procedures do not provide that law enforcement should be called in response to a "No Match" result.¹¹ Moreover, OMV's own policy for passport verification, Section 1, Number 6.05, provides only that when the system returns a "No Match" result, "the [proffered] passport cannot be accepted as an identification document and the customer must submit other identification documents."¹²

Cailleteau then phoned her supervisor, Young, at OMV headquarters in Baton Rouge; Young immediately attempted to verify the passport using the same system.¹³ Young confirmed the "No Match" result and (incorrectly, as it turns out) advised Cailleteau that the passport was "fraudulent."¹⁴ Velazquez alleges that Young "chose not to instruct Cailleteau to request another form of identification ... [and instead] chose to advise Cailleteau to call the police ... and press charges" against her.¹⁵

Cailleteau then called the Westwego Police Department and reported that Velazquez had attempted to obtain a Louisiana driver's license by submitting a fraudulent passport as a means of identification.¹⁶ The Westwego Police Department dispatched Officer Flettrich to investigate.¹⁷ Flettrich did not conduct an independent investigation into the passport, instead relying solely on Cailleteau's report.¹⁸ After Flettrich interviewed Cailleteau, he arrested Velazquez for violating La. Rev. Stat. § 14:70.7, "Possession of Fraudulent Documents," at which point she was transported to the Jefferson Parish Prison and charged with the crime.¹⁹

But the charge did not stick; the District Attorney for Jefferson Parish dismissed it in late May 2020.²⁰ By that time, though, the damage was done—Velazquez had already paid bail and incurred attorney's fees,²¹ and allegedly suffered "mental anguish, emotional distress, damage to her reputation, and financial hardship."²²

Velazquez brings four claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, she alleges that the defendants deprived her of her right to be free from unreasonable seizures, false arrests, and excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.²³ Specifically, she alleges that Cailleteau, acting under color of state law, falsely reported the crime and that Young either directed Cailleteau to do so or, in the alternative, approved or condoned of Cailleteau's choice to falsely report the crime.²⁴ Furthermore, she alleges that Flettrich lacked probable cause to arrest her because he was presented with her facially valid passport.²⁵

Second, Velazquez alleges that Flettrich, Cailleteau, and Young, acting in their individual capacities, deprived her of her right to due process and her right to be free from unreasonable seizures and false arrests under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.²⁶ The Court hoped that granting Velazquez leave to amend would yield a more coherent complaint. But, unfortunately, this claim is virtually identical to Velazquez's first claim, apart from the reference to the Fifth Amendment and an added allegation that, while Cailleteau and Young did not place her under arrest, they are still liable under the Fourth Amendment because they utilized their positions under color of state law to falsely report criminal activity and press charges against her.²⁷

Velazquez also brings an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against all named defendants, alleging that she was arrested based "solely and exclusively upon [her] status and characteristics as a Puerto Rican."²⁸ And, finally, she claims that the City and Chief Munch (as a policymaker of the Westwego Police Department) are liable for Flettrich's conduct, under § 1983 and Monell .²⁹

In addition to the constitutional claims, Velazquez brings a Louisiana state law claim for malicious prosecution against all defendants.³⁰

II.

"When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion 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." Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Hitt v. City of Pasadena , 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) ). "Under Rule 12(b)(1), a claim is ‘properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate’ the claim." Sureshot Golf Ventures, Inc. v. Topgolf Int'l, Inc. , 754 F. App'x 235, 239 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prod. Liab. Litig. , 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2012) ).

When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction "on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Spotts v. United States , 613 F.3d 559, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting St. Tammany Parish, ex rel. Davis v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency , 556 F.3d 307, 315 (5th Cir. 2009) ). "The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction." Ramming , 281 F.3d at 161.

Velazquez has sued the State of Louisiana through the OMV, a division of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Public Safety Services.³¹ The OMV asserts that it is entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.³²

"The Eleventh Amendment grants a State immunity from suit in federal court by citizens of other States, and by its own citizens as well." Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n , 662 F.3d 336, 340 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lapides v. Bd. of Regents , 535 U.S. 613, 616, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002) ). Absent exceptions not relevant here, then, sovereign immunity generally bars a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over a suit against a non-consenting state. See id.³³

That sovereign immunity "extends to any state agency or entity deemed an ‘alter ego’ or ‘arm’ of the state." Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv. Ctr. , 307 F.3d 318, 326 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Vogt v. Bd. of Comm'rs , 294 F.3d 684, 688–89 (5th Cir. 2002) ). To determine whether an agency is an arm of the state, courts in the Fifth Circuit employ a six-factor test, which examines:

(1) whether state statutes and case law view the entity as an arm of the state; (2) the source of the entity's funding; (3) the entity's degree of local autonomy; (4) whether the entity is concerned primarily with local, as opposed to statewide, problems; (5) whether the entity has the authority to sue and be sued in its own name; and (6) whether the entity has the right to hold and use property.

Id. at 326–27. "An entity need not show that all of the factors are satisfied; the factors simply provide guidelines for courts to balance the equities and determine if the suit is really one...