Raymond Cockerham, Jr. VS Ascension Parish, Sheriff Jeffrey Wiley, Warden Bobby Weber, Dr. Stephen Holmes, M.D., Michelle Guerin, R.N., and Rhonda (Last Name Unknown)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICQTION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT N0 2012 CA 1100 RAYMOND JOSEPH COCKERHAM JR L VERSUS PARISH OF ASCENSION ET AL udgment rendered MAY 3 1 2013 Appealed from the 23 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Ascension Louisiana Trial Court No 94 309 Honorable Thomas J Kliebert Jr Judge RAYMOND J COCKERHAM JACKSON LA JR PRO SE APPELLANT PLAINTIFF RAYMOND J COCKERHAM JR FRED SCHROEDER ATTORNEYFOR JASON P WIXOM APPELLEES DEFENDANTS NEW ORLEANS LA EFFREY WILEY SHERIFF BOBBY WEBRE WARDEN BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD 77 c R v c SS 1 s a Qaa u v U McDonald J Plaintiff challenges the district court judgment sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata and dismissing with prejudice his claims against defendants For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The plaintiff Raymond Cockerham r an inmate incarcerated at Ascension Parish jail at the time filed what he captioned a for Judicial Review in the Twenty Petition Third Judicial District Court However in our view Cockerham petition is actually a s claim for damages alleging medical malpractice against several defendants including Jeff Wiley Sheriff of Ascension Parish and Warden Bobby Webre In said petition Cockerham alleged that he suffered from a condition known as spina bifida occulta and that he has suffered with severe spinal and other severe body pain and mental anguish which has directly or indirectly resulted in his extremely limited body mobility and a decrease in his overall general health He further asserted that he had received no response to his requests for Administrative Remedy Procedure and that defendants intentionally willfully maliciously and with full knowledge caused injury pain and I suffering and mental anguish during the discharge of official duties In response to Cockerham petition defendants filed a peremptory exception s raising the objection of res judicata arguing that Cockerham had previously filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana wherein the same parties were named and the same allegations almost verbatim were asserted as the basis for his claims According to the record Cockerham federal suit was dismissed on s summary judgment and is final as no appeal was taken A hearing on the res judicata exception was set for April 27 2012 It is well in Louisiana law that e pleading shall be so construed as to do substantial settled very justice La Code Civ P art 865 Furthermore the jurisprudence holds that courts may overlook miscaptioning of a pleading where the other party is not prejudiced Higdon v Higdon 385 So 396 2d 398 La App i Cir 1980 Our courts look beyond the caption style and form of pleadings to determine from the substance of the pleadings the nature of the proceeding thus a pleading is construed for what it really is not for what it is erroneously called Rochon v Young 2008 p 3 App 1 Cir 1349 La 09 13 2 6 So 890 892 writ 3d denied 0745 2009 La 1 25 10 29 130 S 3325 176 L 1216 2010 Ct 2d Ed 2 So3d 824 cert dismissed S U On April 3 2012 Cockerham filed a For Issuance And Service Of Writ Of Motion Habeas Corpus and a memorandum in opposition to the res judicata exception However there was no order attached to the motion and no action was taken with respect to same Cockerham noted in his memorandum that he was requesting oral arguments due to his lack of knowledge of law and his inability to adequately express himself in writing In said memorandum Cockerham argued that his federal action was a complaint concerning the violation of his constitutional rights protecting against cruel and unusual punishment by Defendants being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs while under their care custody and control Cockerham maintained that the instant civil action was a claim for medical malpractice damages and thus judgment in the federal suit could not have resjudicata effect as to his current claim When the matter came up for hearing on April 27 2012 Cockerham was not present in the courtroom Initially the district court judge offered to reset the matter to a later date However when defendants attorney suggested that the matter be submitted on memorandums the district court judge agreed The following colloquy occurred THE COURT Does anybody know if Cockerham is still incarcerated ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Yes I believe he filed a writ and you denied it Your Honor THE COURT I think there no order attached to the writ so nothing was ever s done I never got it I guess we got to reset it ve ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Or how about submitting it on the memo THE COURT Do you want to reset it for June lst and I have him transported ll ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS s That fine Does it show where he is THE COURT It looks like Jackson Louisiana Dixon Dixon Correctional THE COURT He did submit a memo so I guess I could What the status of the s federal ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS The doctor and the sheriff and the warden have been dismissed The allegations in this state suit are exactly the same s He basically made no factual allegations against the sheriff and the warden We do not hire or employ the medical staff Jeff Diez represents the nurses Dr Holmes has separate counsel and Dr Holmes and the warden and the sheriff have been dismissed from the federal suit THE COURT And you representing just the sheriff re ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS The sheriff and the warden THE COURT All right Ms Clerk Show it being submitted on the memos peremptory exception made absolute or whatever the fancy language is Submit me a judgment Just put submitted on memos and the exception granted Judgment was signed by the district court on May 9 2012 sustaining the res judicata exception filed by defendants and dismissing with prejudice Cockerham claims s against defendants This appeal by Cockerham followed wherein he argued the district court erred in sustaining the res judicata exception in favor of defendants LAW AND ANALYSIS Initially we address Cockerham absence from the res judicata hearing on April s 27 2012 A prisoner has a right of access to state and federal civil courts La Const art S U 1 22 Pollard v White 738 F 1124 1125 lith Cir 1984 cert denied 469 2d 1111 105 Ct S 791 83 2d Ed L 785 1985 However this right does not necessarily include the right to be physically present at the trial of a civil suit Pollard 738 F at 1125 Jones v Phelps 374 So 144 146 La App 1 Cir 1979 Taylor 2d 2d 4 v Broom 526 So 1367 1369 La App 1 Cir 1988 Generally prisoners who 2d bring civil adions have no right to be personally present in court at any stage of the action Holt v Pitts 619 F 558 560 6th Cir 1980 Lawful incarceration brings 2d about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights among which is the right of a prisoner to plead and manage his action in court personally Price v Johnston 334 U 266 285 68 S 1049 1060 92 L 1356 1948 S 286 Ct Ed It is not unusual for individuals who are incarcerated to be parties to civil litigation either as plaintiff or defendant and a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is the means for such individuals to be present in court Prisoners who are parties to litigation utilize this mechanism to obtain their presence in court Ardoin v Bourgeois 2004 p 3 App 3 Cir 11 916 So 329 332 1663 La 05 2 2d 333 Falcon v Falcon 2007 pp 3 La App 5 Cir 12 975 So 40 42 491 4 07 27 2d 43 writ denied 2008 La 3 978 So 311 The determination of whether a 0295 O8 28 2d party prisoner in a civil action should appear personally in court for the trial of the action rests in the discretion of the court Ballard v Spradley 557 F 476 480 2d 481 5th Cir 1977 Taylor 526 So at 1370 2d Based on the facts and circumstances herein we find no abuse of the district s court discretion in deciding to go forward with the res judicata hearing without s Cockerham presence in the courtroom Prior to the hearing Cockerham submitted a memorandum in opposition to the exception setting forth his argument regarding the res judicata issue Thus it was clearly within the district court discretion to allow the s matter to be submitted on memos and proceed to judgment However our analysis does not end here We turn now to a consideration of whether the district court erred in sustaining the res judicata exception in favor of defendants Res judicata bars relitigation of a subject matter arising from the same transaction or occurrence of a previous suit Avenue Plaza L v Falgoust 96 p 4 7 676 So 1077 1079 C 0173 La 2 96 2d La R S 4Z31 13 It promotes judicial efficiency and final resolution of disputes 5 Terrebonne Fuel Lube Inc v Placid Refining Co 95 95 p 12 0654 0671 La 1 666 So 624 631 96 16 2d The chief inquiry is whether the second action asserts a cause of action that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first action Avenue Plaza L C 0173 96 at 6 676 So at 1080 2d However the Louisiana Supreme Court has also emphasized that all of the following elements must be satisfied in order for resjudicatato preclude a second action 1 the first judgment is valid and final 2 the parties are the same 3 the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation and 4 the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation Burguieres v Pollingue 2002 p 8 2 843 So 1049 1053 1385 La 25 03 2d The burden of proving the facts essential to sustaining the objection is on the party pleading the objection Union Planters Bank v Commercial Capital Holding Corp 2004 p 3 App 1 Cir 3 907 So 129 130 0871 La 05 24 2d If any doubt exists as to its application the exception raising the objection of res judicata must be overruled and the second lawsuit maintained Denkmann Associates v IP Timberlands Operating Co Ltd 96 p 8 La App 1 Cir 2 710 2209 9 98 20 2d So 1091 1096 writ denied 98 La 7 724 So 738 1398 98 2 2d The concept should be rejected when doubt exists as to whether a plaintiffs substantive rights actually have been previously addressed and finally resolved Patin v Patin 2000 0969 p 5 App 1 Cir 6 808 So 673 676 La 01 22 2d When as here an objection of resjudicata is raised before the case is submitted and evidence is received on the objection the standard of review on appeal is traditionally manifest error However the res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de nouo Pierrotti v Johnson 2011 p 9 1317 La App 1 Cir 3 91 So 1056 1063 12 19 3d 6 In Tye v Co Offshore Operators Inc 95 La App 1 Cir Mar 0094 95 6 10 669 So 438 writ denied 96 La 6 674 So 975 this court 2d 1051 96 7 2d addressed how the federal theory of claim preclusion is applied when a state court is looking to a federal court judgment to determine its preclusive effects When a state court is required to determine the preclusive effects of a judgment rendered by a federal court exercising federal question jurisdiction it is the federal law of res judicata that must be applied Reeder v Succession of Palmer 623 So 1268 1271 La 1993 2d cert denied 510 U 1165 114 S 1191 127 L 541 1994 S Ct 2d Ed The federal theory of claim preclusion will bar a subsequent action on res judicata principles where parties have previously litigated the same claim to a valid final judgment Id Kaspar Wire Works v Leco Engineering Mach 575 F 530 5th Cir 1978 The key question 2d is whether the claim in the second action is the same as or identical to one on which the parties have previously proceeded to judgment The supreme court in Reeder further stated f I a set of facts gives rise to a claim based on both state and federal law and the plaintiff brings the action in a federal court which had pendenY jurisdiction to hear the state cause of action but the plaintiff fails or refuses to assert his state law claim res judicata prevents him from subsequently asserting the state claim in a state court action unless the federal court clearly would not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted state claim or having jurisdiction clearly would have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion Reeder 623 So at 1272 2d 1273 Tye 95 at 3 669 So at 439 0094 2d 440 For a federal court judgment to bar a subsequent suit under federal res judicata principles it must meet four tests 1 both cases must involve the same parties 2 the prior judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction 3 the prior judgment must have been a judgment on the merits and 4 the cause of nal action at issue must have been the same in both cases Ter Fuel Lube Inc v ebonne Placid Ref Co 95 95 1 666 So 624 633 0654 0671 16 La 96 2d All four of these elements are satisfied in this case In both cases Sheriff Wiley and Warden Webre were sued Ascension Parish comprises part of the Twenty Third Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and lies within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Therefore jurisdiction was proper in both the state and federal courts The judgment of the federal court was a final 7 judgment on the merits as to both Sheriff Wiley and Warden Webre Finally the causes of action in both suits are identical Cockerham alleges that he did not receive adequate medical care during his incarceration at the Ascension Parish jail The federal complaint and the state petition are almost verbatim copies of each other The only difference is that the petition has numerous numbered paragraphs and the federal complaint is a narrative On December 14 2011 the Middle District Court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Wiley and Warden Webre finding that they had no personal involvement in rendering medical treatment to Cockerham because that duty was the responsibility of the Medical Administrator of the Ascension Parish jail The Court also determined that Cockerham was not entitled to an investigation of the administrative complaints or to a favorable response to them In his state action Cockerham alleges the identical causes of action against the sheriff and warden Since the motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims were dismissed in federal court the same claims in state court are subject to claim preclusion under the theory of res judicata The state district court was correct in sustaining the peremptory exception of resjudicata CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court of May 9 2012 is affirmed Appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiff Raymond appellant Cockerham Jr AFFIRMED x RAYMOND COCKERHAM JR NUMBER 2012 CA 1100 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL PARISH JEFFREY WILEY SHERIFF BOBBY WEBER WARDEN FIRST CIRCUIT DR STEPHEN HOLMES STATE OF LOUISIANA ASCENSION MD MICHELLE UNKNOWN LAST NAME RHONDA UNKNOWN LAST NAME ASCENSION PARISH BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ PEITIGREW J DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS h 1 Following a review of the record herein I conclude that the law of res judicata T was U not properly applied in this case The instant suit a claim for medical malpractice was filed by Cockerham in state district court Cockerham previously filed suit in the s United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana was a civil rights claim filed under 42 U 1983 Although the same parties were involved in both cases C S and some of the facts alleged by Cockerham in the instant suit were also set forth by Cockerham in his previously filed federal suit ti daim in the instant suit ithe e e medical malpractice claim is not what was adjudicated before the federal court nor could it have been See La Const Art 5 16 The distrlct court erred in applying the principles of res judicata to bar Cockerham medical malpractice claims against s defendants Accordingly I would reverse the district court judgment that sustained s defendants res judicata exception and dismissed Cockerham claims and remand for s further proceedings
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.
