Johnson et al v. City of Bogalusa et al

Filing 189

ORDER denying Defendants' 162 Motion for Summary Judgment, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/21/2013. (tsf)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ANTHONY JOHNSON, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 10-3444 BOGALUSA CITY, et al., Defendants SECTION “E” ORDER 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. 1 R. Docs. Nos. 162, 175. 1 New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of August, 2013. _____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?