Cain et al v. New Orleans City et al, No. 2:2015cv04479 - Document 123 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 92 Motion to Dismiss and dismisses plaintiffs' claims against the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. The Court also dismisses plaintiffs' claims against the court's Judicial Administrator, Robert Ka zik, in his official capacity because when a civil rights plaintiff's claims against an entity "fail for a jurisdictional, procedural, or pleading defect," any official capacity claim against an individual representative of that entity also fails. The only remaining claims against the "judicial defendants" are the declaratory relief claim against Kazik, in his individual capacity, and the declaratory relief claims against the thirteen Criminal District Court judges.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 5/11/16. (jjs)

Download PDF

Cain et al v. New Orleans City et al Doc. 123 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALANA CAIN, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-4479 CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL. SECTION: R(2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Named plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to declare the m anner in which the Orleans Parish Crim inal District Court collects post-judgm ent court costs from indigent debtors unconstitutional. According to plaintiffs, the Crim inal District Court and other, related actors m aintain a policy of jailing crim inal defendants who fail to pay their court costs solely because of their indigence. 1 The “judicial defendants” now ask the Court to dism iss plaintiffs’ claim s against the Crim inal District Court under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 Defendants argue that the Orleans 1 See generally R. Doc. 7 (Plaintiffs’ First Am ended Class Action Com plaint). 2 R. Doc. 92. The “judicial defendants” are the Orleans Parish Crim inal District Court, its thirteen judges, and the judicial adm inistrator, Robert Kazik. Dockets.Justia.com Parish Crim inal District Court is “not a person subject to suit under § 1983.”3 Although this argum ent appears lim ited to whether the court m ay be sued for civil rights violations under section 1983, the cases on which defendants’ rely pertain to whether an entity m ay be sued at all—that is, whether the court is a “person” with “capacity to sue or be sued” under state law. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Regardless, defendants also argue that the court is entitled to im m unity under the Eleventh Am endment. 4 Courts in this and other circuits routinely hold that state courts are im m une from suit under the Eleventh Am endm ent. See, e.g., Jefferson v. La. State Suprem e Court, 46 F. App’x 732, *1 (5th Cir. 20 0 2) (“The Eleventh Am endm ent clearly bars [plaintiff’s] § 1983 claim s against the Louisiana Suprem e Court, which is a branch of Louisiana’s state government.”); Bourgeois v. Par. of Jefferson, 20 F.3d 465, *1 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that the Orleans Parish Civil District Court is “an agency of the state” entitled to Eleventh Am endment im m unity); Sum m ers v. Louisiana, No. 13-4573, 20 13 WL 3818560 , at *4 (E.D. La. J uly 22, 20 13) (holding that an official capacity claim against a state court judge “would in reality be a claim against the state 3 R. Doc. 92-1 at 3. 4 Id. at 1. itself, and . . . would be barred by the Eleventh Am endm ent”); W ilkerson v. 17th Judicial Dist. Court, No. 0 8-1196, 20 0 9 WL 249737, at *4 (E.D. La. J an. 30 , 20 0 9) (“It is clear that the Eleventh Am endm ent bars § 1983 claim s against a state court.”); Rackley v. Louisiana, No. 0 7-50 4, 20 0 7 WL 1792524, at *3 (E.D. La. J une 21, 20 0 7) (“[T]he Eleventh Am endm ent likewise bars § 1983 claim s against a state court.”); see generally Mum ford v. Basinski, 10 5 F.3d 264, 267 (6th Cir. 1997) (noting that state courts are not “persons” under section 1983 and are otherwise im mune from suit as an arm of the state government); Harris v. Cham pion, 51 F.3d 90 1, 90 5-0 6 (10 th Cir. 1995) (holding that Oklahom a Court of Crim inal Appeals is im m une from suit under Eleventh Am endment as “a governmental entity that is an arm of the state”); Landers Seed Co., Inc. v. Cham paign N at’l Bank, 15 F.3d 729, 731-32 (7th Cir. 1994) (“The Eleventh Am endm ent, however, bars federal suits against state courts and other branches of state governm ent[.]”); Clark v. Clark, 984 F.2d 272, 273 (8th Cir. 1993) (“Courts are not persons within the m eaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and, if they were, the action would be barred by the Eleventh Am endm ent anyway.”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ m otion to dism iss for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction and dism isses plaintiffs’ claim s against the Orleans Parish Crim inal District Court. The Court also dism isses plaintiffs’ claim s against the court’s J udicial Adm inistrator, Robert Kazik, in his official capacity because when a civil rights plaintiff’s claim s against an entity “fail for a jurisdictional, procedural, or pleading defect,” any official capacity claim against an individual representative of that entity also fails. See Turner v. Houm a Mun. Fire & Police Civil Serv. Bd., 229 F.3d 478, 483 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ) (collecting cases). The only rem aining claim s against the “judicial defendants” are the declaratory relief claim against Kazik, in his individual capacity, 5 and the declaratory relief claim s against the thirteen Crim inal District Court judges. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _11th _ _ day of May, 20 16. ___ ___________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 5 See R. Doc. 119 at 28.

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.