Johnson et al v. City of Bogalusa et al
ORDER denying Defendants' 162 Motion for Summary Judgment, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/21/2013. (tsf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BOGALUSA CITY, et al.,
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which Plaintiff
opposes.1 The motion is DENIED. At a minimum, there is a genuine issue of material fact
whether Defendants maintained an unconstitutional policy, through a policy itself or by a
failure to train, of evaluating the credibility of witnesses as part of their decision whether
to disclose witnesses’ statements under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). A jury
could conclude that “policymakers [were] on actual or constructive notice that a particular
omission in their training program cause[d]” Defendants “to violate citizens’ constitutional
rights,” Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1360 (2011), because the Fifth Circuit had
explicitly rejected this dubious practice more than six months before Plaintiff’s trial,
Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1040 (5th Cir. 1985), yet Defendants persisted in their
unconstitutional conduct through trial (and for many years afterwards). This is but one
example of several ways a jury could find in Plaintiff’s favor.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
R. Docs. Nos. 162, 175.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of August, 2013.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?