Francois et al v. Jefferson Parish et al, No. 2:2016cv15769 - Document 14 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS re 10 Motion to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 13 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of C ivil Procedure filed by Defendant Jefferson Parish is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Defendant the State of Louisiana is granted. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (CC: Matthias and Obadiah Francois) (bwn)

Download PDF

Francois et al v. Jefferson Parish et al Doc. 14 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A MATTH IAS FRAN COIS, ET AL., Plain tiffs CIVIL D OCKET VERSU S N O. 16 -1576 9 J EFFERSON PARISH , ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a Motion to Dism iss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 1 filed by Defen dant J efferson Parish and a Motion to Dism iss for Lack of Subject Matter J urisdiction 2 filed Defendant the State of Louisiana. For the following reasons, Defendants’ m otions to dism iss are granted. BACKGROU N D On October 21, 20 16, pro se Plaintiffs, Matthias Francois and Obadiah Francois, filed their com plaint against J efferson Parish and the State of Louisiana. 3 On Novem ber 2, 20 16, Plaintiffs’ m otions to proceed in form a pauperis were granted. 4 On Novem ber 16, 20 16, Defendant J efferson Parish filed its m otion to dism iss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 J efferson Parish argues this suit against it should be dism issed on the grounds that Plaintiffs have m ade insufficient service of process and for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 6 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Defendant’s m otion. On J anuary 12, 20 17, the Court issued its Order requiring Plaintiffs to file an am en ded com plaint setting forth specific claim s 1 R. Doc. 10 . R. Doc. 13. 3 R. Doc. 1. 4 R. Doc. 3. 5 R. Doc. 5. 6 See id. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com m ade against each Defendant and particular facts supporting each claim by Thursday, February 2, 20 17. 7 On J anuary 17, 20 17, Plaintiffs filed their am ended com plaint 8 and on J anuary 20 , 20 17, the Court issued its Order dism issing J efferson Parish’s m otion to dism iss without prejudice as m oot. 9 Pursuant to the Court’s Order, J efferson Parish was free to re-urge its m otion to dism iss in a tim ely fashion. 10 On J anuary 31, 20 17, Defendant J efferson Parish filed its Re-Urged Motion to Dism iss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 11 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to J efferson Parish’s Motion to Dism iss. On March 14, 20 17, Defendant State of Louisiana filed its Motion to Dism iss for Lack of Subject Matter J urisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 12 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the State of Louisiana’s m otion to dism iss. LEGAL STAN D ARD I. Rule 12(b)(1) Federal courts are courts of lim ited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claim s.”13 A m otion to dism iss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court’s subject-m atter jurisdiction. 14 Under Rule 12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dism issed for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”15 “Lack of subject-m atter jurisdiction m ay be found in the com plaint alone, the com plaint 7 R. Doc. 7. The Court also ordered that Plaintiffs properly serve their am ended com plaint on Defendants by Tuesday, February 28 , 20 17. See id. at 4. 8 R. Doc. 8. 9 R. Doc. 9. 10 Id. at 2. 11 R. Doc. 10 . 12 R. Doc. 13. 13 In re FEMA Trailer Form aldehy de Products Liab. Litig. (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 20 12). 14 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 15 Hom e Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 10 0 6, 10 10 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 2 supplem ented by the undisputed facts as evidenced in the record, or the com plaint supplem ented by the undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of the disputed facts.”16 “When, as here, grounds for dism issal m ay exist under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), the Court should, if necessary, dism iss only under the form er without reaching the question of failure to state a claim .”17 II. Rule 12(b)(6) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court m ay dism iss a com plaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief m ay be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. 18 “To survive a m otion to dism iss, a com plaint m ust contain sufficient factual m atter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”19 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the m isconduct alleged.”20 The court, however, does not accept as true legal conclusions or m ere conclusory statem ents, and “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions m asquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a m otion to dism iss.”21 “[T]hreadbare recitals of elem ents of a cause of action, supported by m ere conclusory statem ents” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancem ent” are not sufficient. 22 16 In re FEMA, 668 F.3d at 287. Valdery v. Louisiana W orkforce Com m ’n , No. CIV.A. 15-0 1547, 20 15 WL 530 7390 , at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 10 , 20 15). 18 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Tw om bly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (20 0 7); Cuvillier v. Tay lor, 50 3 F.3d 397, 40 1 (5th Cir. 20 0 7). 19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (20 0 9) (quotin g Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 570 ). 20 Id. 21 S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Suprem e Court of the State of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir. 20 0 1) (citing Fernandez-M ontes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993)). 22 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663, 678 (citations om itted). 17 3 In sum m ary, “[f]actual allegations m ust be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”23 “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not perm it the court to infer m ore than the m ere possibility of m isconduct, the com plaint has alleged—but it has not show[n]’—that the pleader is entitled to relief.”24 “Dism issal is appropriate when the com plaint ‘on its face show[s] a bar to relief.’”25 D ISCU SSION I. J efferson Parish’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dism iss Defendant J efferson Parish filed a Motion to Dism iss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 26 Defendant J efferson Parish argues Plaintiffs’ claim s are based on the alleged actions of the Second Parish Court and, apparently the court-appointed physicians in som e undescribed underlying crim in al case. Defendant J efferson Parish argues it is not responsible for the appointm ent of physicians by the Second Parish Court, Plaintiffs’ m ental competency, or any crim inal prosecution or defense of Plaintiffs. J efferson Parish argues it has no duty regarding any of these m atters and cannot be held liable to Plaintiffs for any alleged breach of any constitutional rights, or any alleged resultant dam ages, whether punitive or otherwise. The Court agrees. The Second Parish Court for the Parish of J efferson was created by the Louisiana Legislature. 27 As the Second Parish Court for the Parish of J efferson is a creature of the State, J efferson Parish is not a proper defendant in a suit arising out of actions or inactions by the Second Parish Court for the Parish of J efferson. 28 23 Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 555. Id. (quotin g Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 25 Cutrer v. McMillan, 30 8 F. App’x 819, 8 20 (5th Cir. 20 0 9) (per curiam ) (quotation s om itted). 26 R. Doc. 10 . 27 See La. R.S. § 2532.1. 28 As the Second Parish Court for the Parish of J efferson is a creature of the State, the State of Louisiana is the proper defendant. However, as discussed below, Plaintiffs’ claim s against the State in federal court are barred by Rule 12(b)(1) sovereign im m un ity. 24 4 The Court notes its cognizance of Plaintiffs’ pro se status. “It is well-established that ‘pro se com plaints are held to less stringent standards than form al pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”29 “Despite [the] general willingness to construe pro se filings liberally, [the courts] still require pro se parties to fundam entally ‘abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.’”30 Am ong other requirem ents, Plaintiffs proceeding pro se “m ust properly plead sufficient facts that, when liberally construed, state a plausible claim to relief, serve defendants, [and] obey discovery orders.”31 With this m axim in m in d, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s leave to file an am ended com plaint. 32 Even construing the am ended com plaint liberally, it is clear that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against J efferson Parish for which relief could be granted. Further, the Court finds that it is apparent from the record in this case that allowing further am endm ent will be futile. J efferson Parish’s Motion to Dism iss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted. II. State of Louisiana’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dism iss Defendant the State of Louisiana filed a Motion to Dism iss for Lack of Subject Matter J urisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Louisiana Revised Statute section 13:510 6(A) states, “[n]o suit against the state or a state agency or a political subdivision shall be instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court.”33 As the State correctly identifies, “Thus, in each unsanctioned instance of federal suit, the State or its agency m ust affirm atively waive its sovereign im m unity.”34 The State 29 Tay lor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 20 0 2) (quotin g Miller v. Stanm ore, 636 F.2d 986, 98 8 (5th Cir. 1981)). 30 E.E.O.C. v. Sim baki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 20 14), as revised (Sept. 18 , 20 14) (quotin g Frazier v. W ells Fargo Bank, N .A., 541 F. App’x 419, 421 (5th Cir. 20 13) (internal quotation m arks om itted)). 31 Id. (citations om itted). 32 R. Doc. 7. 33 La. R.S. 13:510 6(A). 34 R. Doc. 13-1 at 3 (citin g Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney , 495 U.S. 299, 30 5 (1990 ); Stem v . Ahearn, 90 8 F.2d 1, 4 (5th Cir. 1990 )). 5 of Louisiana has not waived its sovereign im m unity from suit in federal court. 35 In its Motion to Dism iss, Defendant, the State of Louisiana, states it does not consent to this suit. 36 Noting the Plaintiffs’ pro se status, as discussed above, the Court finds allowing further am endm ent will be futile. The State of Louisiana’s Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORD ERED that the Motion to Dism iss 37 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Defendant J efferson Parish is granted. IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the Motion to Dism iss 38 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Defen dant the State of Louisiana is granted. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 14 th d ay o f Ap ril, 2 0 17. ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE Cle rk to s e rve Plain tiffs via re gu la r m ail: Matth ia s an d Obad iah Fran co is 6 0 0 D e e rfie ld Rd . Ap t 711 St. Be rn ard , LA 70 0 8 5 35 See Raj v. Louisiana State Univ., 714 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 20 13). R. Doc. 13-1 at 3. 37 R. Doc. 10 . 38 R. Doc. 13. 36 6

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.