Cross v. Bates-Anderson et al, No. 2:2016cv11626 - Document 10 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER and REASONS Granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 9/14/2016. (ajn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cross v. Bates-Anderson et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAPHNE CROSS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 16-11626 CANDICE BATES-ANDERSON, ET AL. SECTION: "A" (4) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S The following m otion is before the Court: Mo tio n to D is m is s ( Re c. D o c. 8 ) filed by defen dants Daphne J ohnson, Lem oyne Reine, and Cody Sm ith. Plaintiff Daphne Cross (pro se), m other of the m inor X.F., opposes the m otion. The m otion, noticed for subm ission on Septem ber 7, 20 16, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argum ent. Plaintiff Daphne Cross has filed this § 1983 com plaint pro se on behalf of her m inor son X.F. According to her com plaint, J uvenile Court J udge Candice BatesAnderson (a defendant herein) presided over X.F.’s case wherein he was placed in the custody of the Bridge City Center for Youth at the age of 15. Plaintiff com plains that notwithstanding som e prior abuse at Bridge City Center that X.F. had endured in Septem ber 20 14, the judge decided to keep him there. On J une 25, 20 15, X.F. was attacked by som e other youths and had to be rushed to Children’s Hospital to have his ear sewn back on. Defendant Cody Sm ith was an em ployee of Bridge City and the Court gleans from the com plaint that Plaintiff believes that Sm ith lied in Court about X.F.’s case. Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com Defendant Lem oyne Reine was X.F.’s probation officer, and defendant Daphne J ohnson was Reine’s supervisor. Plaintiff alleges generally that her son’s federal constitutional rights were violated by the defendants acting together. 1 Defendants J ohnson, Reine, and Sm ith m ove to dism iss all federal claim s against them . They contend that Plaintiff has sued them in their official capacities, and that for purposes of § 1983 they are not “persons” am enable to suit. The m otion m ust be granted as to these defen dants in their official capacities. The well-settled law is that state officials in their official capacities are not “persons” under § 1983. See W ill v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). The federal claim s against defendants J ohnson, Reine, and Sm ith in their official capacities are dism issed with prejudice. The question then is whether the com plaint m ust be dism issed in its entirety as to these defendants based on the prin ciples of W ill, supra. Plaintiff is not explicit in the body of her com plaint as to whether she inten ded to sue the defendants only in their official capacities — it is in the caption of her com plaint that she refers to the official capacity of each defendant. The Court is m indful that a docum ent filed pro se is to be liberally construed however “inartfully pleaded,” and m ust be “held to less stringent standards than form al pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (20 0 7) (quoting Estelle v. Gam ble, 429 U.S. 97, 10 6 (1976)). Liberally construing the com plaint, the factual allegations allow for the inference that Plaintiff did not intend to lim it her com plaint to defendants in their official capacities only. The Court interprets 1 Plaintiff has also sued Ms. Tenee Felix, X.F.’s attorney. J udge Bates-Anderson and Felix are not m ovants in this m otion. Page 2 of 3 the com plaint as also asserting claim s against the defendants in their personal capacities. Plaintiff should not construe this ruling as an indication that the Court believes that she has actually pleaded a colorable claim against an y defendant. Rather, the Court finds only that in granting the instant m otion the Court need not dism iss the com plaint in its entirety as to these defen dants. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reason s; IT IS ORD ERED that the Mo tio n to D is m is s ( Re c. D o c. 8 ) filed by defendants Daphne J ohnson, Lem oyne Reine, and Cody Sm ith is GRAN TED in that all federal claim s against these defendants in their official capacities are dism issed. Septem ber 14, 20 16 J AY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE Page 3 of 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.
