Payton v. Williams et al

Filing 14

ORDER & REASONS granting 12 Motion to Dismiss Party. Party Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/16/2011. (rll, ) Modified on 8/17/2011 to edit doc type (rll, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHOUNDA MARIE EDWARDS-PAYTON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-00191

SHANTEL WILLIAMS, ET AL

SECTION: R(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Orleans Parish Criminal
Sheriff’s Office’s motion to dismiss a party.1
unopposed.

I.

The motion is

For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a dispute between plaintiff, Shounda

Edwards-Payton, and defendant, Shantel Williams.

On January 29,

2010, plaintiff and Williams attended a Zulu Social Aid and
Pleasure Club function held at Club Metro.

At about one in the

morning on January 30, 2010, plaintiff and Williams got into an
argument that led to a physical altercation.

Plaintiff alleges

that “[a]s the chaos began to subside,”2 a security guard at Club
Metro forced her to leave.

Later, plaintiff went to the Third

District Police Station to file charges against Williams.
1

R. Doc. 12.

2

R. Doc. 1.

Plaintiff alleges that she was unable to do so, and she, herself,
was charged with aggravated battery.

Plaintiff contends that

Sergeant Short and Corporal Racadio, the officers who filed the
report of the incident, knew the allegations were false.

She

asserts that they charged plaintiff with the offense because of
Williams’ relationship with the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s
Office.
On January 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint in district
court for malicious prosecution, libel, slander, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligence for failing to
provide adequate security, and conspiracy to harass, assault,
batter and maliciously prosecute plaintiff.3

Plaintiff named

Shantel Williams, the Zulu Social Aid and Pleasure Club, Club
Metro, Sergeant Short, Corporal Racadio and the Orleans Parish
Criminal Sheriff’s Office as defendants.

The Orleans Parish

Criminal Sheriff’s Office’s motion to dismiss the Office as a
party is now before the Court.

II.

STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff

must plead enough facts "to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1960

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
3

Id.
2

(2007)).

A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads

facts that allow the court to "draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
1949.

Id. at

A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and

must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 239 (5th Cir. 2009);
Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996).

But the Court

is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched as
factual allegations.

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a
"sheer possibility" that plaintiff's claim is true.

Id.

It need

not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must go beyond
labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the
elements of a cause of action.

Id.

In other words, the face of

the complaint must contain enough factual matter to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of
each element of the plaintiff’s claim.

Lormand, 565 F.3d at 257.

If there are insufficient factual allegations to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level, or if it is apparent from the
face of the complaint that there is an insuperable bar to relief,
the claim must be dismissed.

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Jones v.

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325,
328 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2007).

3

III. DISCUSSION
The Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s Office argues that it
must be dismissed as a party because it is not a juridicial
entity capable of suing or being sued.

Rule 17(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the capacity to sue or be
sued is determined by “the law of the state where the court is
located.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 17(b).

Under Louisiana law, “[i]t is

well settled...that a Sheriff’s Department is not a legal entity
capable of being sued.”

Valentine v. Bonneville Ins. Co., 691

So.2d 665, 668 (La. 1997); see also Ferguson v. Stephens, 623
So.2d 711, 714 (La. Ct. App. 1993) (finding that a Sheriff’s
Office is not a legal entity capable of being sued).

Indeed,

“[t]he law of Louisiana affords no legal status to the ‘Parish
Sheriff’s Department’ so that the department can sue or be sued,
such status being reserved for the Sheriff.”

Id. (citing Liberty

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant Parish Sheriff’s Dep’t, 350 So.2d 236,
238(La. Ct. App. 1977)); see also Warren v. New Orleans Police
Dep’t, 1992 WL 233786, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 2, 1992)(“Louisiana
affords no legal status to the ‘Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's
Department’ such that it can sue or be sued.”).

Accordingly,

plaintiff’s claims against the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriffs
Office must be dismissed as the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s
Office is not a proper party defendant to this action.

4

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Orleans Parish Criminal

Sheriff’s Office motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of August, 2011.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5