Jones et al v. Gusman et al, No. 2:2012cv00859 - Document 1680 (E.D. La. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1674 . ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is approved, and the Court adopts it as its opinion in this matter. FURTHER ORDERED that Sheriff Hutson& #039;s 1650 MOTION to Stay pending appeal re 1648 Order denying motion to terminate all orders regarding the construction of the Phase III jail is denied and Sheriff Hutson's objections are overruled. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/15/2023.(Reference: 12-859)(ko)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones et al v. Gusman et al Doc. 1680 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LASHAWN JONES ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 12-859 MARLIN N. GUSMAN ET AL. SECTION I ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson’s (“Sheriff Hutson”) “motion 1 to stay all orders regarding the construction of the Phase III jail, pending Sheriff Hutson’s appeal of this Court’s September 8, 2023 Order & Reasons denying Sheriff Hutson’s Motion to Terminate.” The United States Magistrate Judge (the “Magistrate Judge”) has provided a report and recommendation (the “R&R”), 2 recommending that Sheriff Hutson’s motion be denied. 3 Sheriff Hutson now objects 4 to the report and recommendation. Specifically, Sheriff Hutson argues in her conclusory and unsupported objections that (1) the R&R applied the incorrect legal standard because Sheriff Hutson was “not required to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits”; (2) the R&R erred in finding that Sheriff Hutson will not be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the R&R erred in finding that the harm to the other parties caused by a stay justifies denying the motion to stay; and (4) the R&R erred in finding that the public interest weighs 1 R. Doc. No. 1650. R. Doc. No. 1674. 3 Id. at 10. 4 R. Doc. No. 1675. 2 Dockets.Justia.com against a stay. 5 The plaintiffs and the United States filed responses 6 to the Sheriff’s objections. The Magistrate Judge applied the correct legal standard in assessing the first Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987), factor. Sheriff Hutson suggests that “Plaintiffs, the United States, and [the] Magistrate Judge did not address” the “serious legal question” presented by her appeal. In reality, the plaintiffs, the United States, and the Magistrate Judge all considered the alleged “serious legal question[.]” 7 As the R&R explained, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that, “in the mine run of appeals, likelihood of success remains a prerequisite, and a presentation of a substantial case . . . alone is not sufficient.” 8 However, “[i]n a limited subset of cases, a movant need only present a substantial case on the merits if (1) a serious legal question is involved and (2) the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.” 9 The Magistrate Judge rightly found that Sheriff Hutson has not shown that a “serious legal question” is involved in her appeal. 10 Even if this case did present a “serious legal question[,]” Sheriff Hutson would need to show that “the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.” As the R&R makes clear, Sheriff 5 Id. at 2. R. Doc. Nos. 1677, 1679. 7 R. Doc. No. 1625 (plaintiffs’ response), at 12–15; R. Doc. No. 1662 (United States’ response), at 5–6; R. Doc. No. 1674 (R&R), at 3–5. 8 R. Doc. No. 1674, at 3 (quoting Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389, 397 (5th Cir. 2020)). 9 Id. (quoting Texas Democratic Party, 961 F.3d at 397). 10 Id. at 3–5. 6 2 Hutson has not made this showing. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the “likelihood of success” standard rather than the “substantial case on the merits” standard. Regardless, Sheriff Hutson is not entitled to a stay under either standard for the reasons set forth in the R&R. Having considered and rejected Sheriff Hutson’s remaining objections, IT IS ORDERED that the report and recommendation 11 of the United States Magistrate Judge is approved, and the Court adopts it as its opinion in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sheriff Hutson’s motion 12 is DENIED and Sheriff Hutson’s objections 13 are OVERRULED. New Orleans, Louisiana, November 15, 2023. _______________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 R. Doc. No. 1674. R. Doc. No. 1650. 13 R. Doc. No. 1675. 12 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
