Taylor Carlisle, et al v. Newell Normand, et al, No. 18-30002 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-30002 Document: 00515076271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-30002 August 14, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk TAYLOR CARLISLE, individually and as Representative Member of a Class; EMILE HERON, individually and as Representative Member of a Class, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. TRACY MUSSAL, as Program Supervisor of the 24th Judicial District Court Drug Court Intensive Probation Program; KEVIN THERIOT, Probation Coordinator of the 24th Judicial District Court Drug Court Intensive Probation Program; KRISTEN BECNEL, as Administrator of the 24th Judicial District Court Drug Court Intensive Probation Program, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:16-CV-3767 Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellants, two former participants in Jefferson Parish’s Drug Court, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged members of the Drug Court, acting in their official and individual capacities, Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 18-30002 Document: 00515076271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2019 No. 18-30002 violated their constitutional rights to due process by jailing them for technical program violations without a hearing and for giving them “flat time” sentences that did not allow the ability to earn credit for good behavior. The district court dismissed the claims against three Defendants, a Drug Court administrator, a Drug Court supervisor, and Drug Court probation officer, and entered a final judgment in their favor. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and the relevant portions of the record. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for the reasons explained in the district court’s orders dated May 23, 2017, August 1, 2017, October 31, 2017, and December 19, 2017. 2
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.
