Diana Lewis VS Trina D. Dorsey and Baton Rouge City Police
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COtiRT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CA 2308 DIANA LEWIS VERSUS TRINA D DORSEY AND BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE Judgment Rendered November 2 2012 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 549 358 Honorable Wilson Fields Judge Presiding J Diana Lewis Appellant Plaintiff Baton Rouge LA In Proper Person Brian Lewis Appellant Plaintiff In Proper Person Baton Rouge LA Arlene C Edwards Assistant City Parish Attorney Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Defendants Appellees Trina Dorsey and Baton Rouge City Police x BEFORE WHIPPLE McCLENDON AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ HIGGINBOTHAM J The plaintiffs Diana Lewis and her son Brian Lewis appeal a directed verdict judgment granted in favor of the defendants Trina Dorsey and the Baton Rouge City Police ordering the dismissal of their suit After a thorough review of the record we affirm the judgment of the trial cc urt Diana Lewis and Brian Lewis were residents of Renaissance Village in Baker Louisiana On October 7 2006 Brian Lewis called 911 to report that someone was taking pictures of their residence and that he had been threatened Baton Rouge City Police Officers Trina Dorsey and Carl Alexander responded to the call Upon arrival the police officers spoke to Brian Lewis and he told the officers that he placed the call because he wanted the incident documented and that there had been no threats to himself ar his mother The officers then informed Brian Lewis that it was illegal to call 911 for non purposes Diana emergency Lewis and Brian Lewis became enraged and abusive to the police officers and were ultimately arrested Diana Lewis was charged with public intimidation and Brian Lewis was charged with public intimidation resisting arrest and illegal use of the 1 9 system Upon arrest Diana Lewis was handcuffed and placed into Officer s Dorsey police car While Officer porsey was backing up the police car to leave the scene she struck a utility pole On November 9 2006 Diana Lewis ftled a personal injury suit naming as defendants the Baton Rouge City Police and Officer porsey and alleging injuries as a result of the incident with the police car By amended petition Brian Lewis was added as a plaintiff and additional claims for false imprisonment false arrest police mistreatment and civil rights violations were also alleged by both DefendanYs counsel moved for a verdict which may be granted in a jury trial directed pursuant to La Code Civ P ar 1810 rather than for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to La Code Civ P art 1672B which may be granted in a bench trial The error was one of form rather than substance as the ultimate object of both motions is the same Gillmer v Parish Sterling Stuckey 09 La App lst Cir 12 30 So 782 785 n 2 0901 09 23 3d 2 plaintiffs A trial on the merits was held on January 27 2011 At trial the plaintiffs offered the testimony of Officer porsey and three other Baton Rouge City Police Officers At the end of the plaintiffs case the defendants moved for a directed verdict which the trial court granted By judgment signed on February 16 2011 the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs claims against the defendants with prejudice From this judgment the plaintiffs now appeal essentially arguing that the trial court was in error in granting the directed verdict Specifically plaintiffs allege that the witnesses told lies during the trial Initially we note that a trial court credibility determinations are subject to s the strictest deference and the manifest error or clearly wrong standard demands great deference for the trial court findings Theriot v Lasseigne 93 La s 2661 94 5 7640 So 1305 1313 2d The trial court saral reasons for judgment stated The defense has moved for a directed verdict on both claims of Mr Brian Lewis and Ms Diana Lewis I will first deal with the one on Mr Brian Lewis for Mr Lewis claim that his civil rights were s violated In this trial today there was nothing brought forth to this court to show any rights of Mr Lewis being violated Mr Lewis argued that he was arrested wrongfully for making a 911 call and he questioned the witnesses about public intimidation but once again there was no evidence brought forth to this court to prove his case So the court is going to granY the directed verdict for the city on Mr Brian Lewis Ms Diana Lewis brings an incident for likewise and best that this court can tell from their petition for personal injuries that she sustained while she was inside the police car when Officer Dorsey hit a pole The evidence does show that Ms Dorsey hit a pole but there has been nothing brought forth to this court to show that Ms Lewis sustained any injuries as a result of that particular accident There have been no medical bills offered no testimony even offered in terms of any injuries I note that Ms Lewis did not testify on her own behalf in terms of what injuries she may have sustained in this particular incident And likewise Mr Lewis didn t testify as to why he felt that his civil rights were violated So therefore the court is going to grant both directed verdicts each party 2 Several additional defendants were also named in the amended petition however these additional defendants were subsequently dismissed and are not relevant to this appeal 3 to bear their own costs After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence we find that the trial court oral reasons for judgment adequately explain the decision We s agree with the trial court that Ms Diana Lewxs az Mr Brian Lewis failed to produce ev to support the allegations in tiie petition Therefore we find the trial court decision was legally conect Furtherm w find uo manifest error s re e in the trial court factual findings and conclusions of law Thus we affirm the s judgment of the trial court and issue this opinion in accordance with Rule 2 1B 16 of the Unifarm Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Additionally plaintiffs July 5 2012 motion to supplement the record is denied All costs of this appeal are assessed against Ms Diana Lewis and Mr Brian Lewis MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DENIED JUDGMENT AFFIRI IED 4
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.
