Scott v. State of Louisiana et al, No. 2:2020cv00043 - Document 52 (E.D. La. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that 36 Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants Judge Lauren Lemmon and Judge Timothy Marcel is GRANTED. Scott's claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED. Party Judge Lauren Lemmon and Judge Timothy Marcel are dismissed. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/29/2020. (ajn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Scott v. State of Louisiana et al Doc. 52 Case 2:20-cv-00043-JCZ-DMD Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VANCE SCOTT, SR. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-43 STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. SECTION “A” (3) ORDER AND REASONS Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior to the noticed submission date of the motion. Here, the Plaintiff Vance Scott failed to file any memoranda in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 36) filed by the Defendants Judge Lauren Lemmon and Judge Timothy Marcel. This Motion was scheduled for consideration on June 10, 2020. In addition to being unopposed, the Court concludes that this motion has merit. Scott makes a claim against Judge Lemmon and Judge Marcel in their official and individual capacities. However, Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Scott’s official capacity claims against Judge Lemmon and Judge Marcel. “[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office” and “[a]s such, it is no different than a suit against the State itself.” Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (citations omitted). Thus, Scott’s claims against Judge Lemmon and Judge Marcel in their official capacities as Louisiana state court judges are in fact, claims against the State of Louisiana. Because Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Scott’s claims against the State of the Louisiana, Scott’s claims are dismissed. Similarly, judicial immunity bars Scott’s individual capacity claims against Judge Lemmon and Judge Marcel. “A judge, of whatever status in the judicial hierarchy, is Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00043-JCZ-DMD Document 52 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 2 immune from suit for damages resulting from any acts performed in [his or her] judicial role.” Ammons v. Baldwin, 705 F.2d 1445, 1447 (5th Cir. 1983). This immunity applies even if a judge is accused of acting maliciously or corruptly. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). Further, judicial officers are absolutely immune from liability for damages unless they are without jurisdiction. Dayse v. Schuldt, 894 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir.1990). Thus, the Court finds here that judicial immunity applies to Scott’s claims against Judge Lemmon and Judge Marcel in their individual capacities. Accordingly; IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 36) filed by the Defendants Judge Lauren Lemmon and Judge Timothy Marcel is GRANTED. Scott’s claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED. . July 29, 2020 _________________________________ JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 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.
