White v. Officer X et al
Filing
25
ORDER AND REASONS granting 9 Motion to Dismiss Party. Party Howard Prince (Individually in his capacity as Warden for the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center) dismissed. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 12/20/2012. (mmm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TALLYS WHITE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-2926
OFFICER X, ET AL.
SECTION “N” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is the “Motion to Dismiss Defendant Warden Howard
Prince” (Rec. Doc. 9). Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and applicable law,1 the
Court finds that Defendant Prince’s motion should be granted for essentially the reasons stated in
his supporting memorandum (Rec. Doc. 9-1). Absent a facially plausible allegation in Plaintiff’s
complaint of personal involvement by Warden Price, or an official policy implemented by him, as
1
As discussed in Bishop v. Shell Oil Co., No. 07-2832, 2008 WL 2079944, *1-2 (E.D.
La. 5/16/08) (Engelhardt, J.), Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the
complaint provide the defendant with "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 511, 122 S. Ct. 992, 998 (2002)
(internal citations omitted); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416, 122 S. Ct. 2179,
2187 (2002) (the elements of the plaintiff's claim(s) "must be addressed by allegations in the
complaint sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant"). Although a complaint does not need
"detailed factual allegations, . . . more than labels and conclusions are necessary, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (internal citations and quotations
omitted); see also Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986)
(on a motion to dismiss, courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation"). Thus, "the plaintiff must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'" In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570)). The degree of required specificity, however, depends on
context, i.e., the type of claim at issue. Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008).
well as facts sufficient to provide fair notice of the grounds upon which Prince’s alleged “deliberate
indifference” rest, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Prince upon which legal relief can be granted
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Price’s motion is
GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims against him are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s right to file, no later than twenty (20) days from the entry of this Order
and Reasons, an amending and superseding complaint remedying the pleading deficiencies identified
herein. The amending and superseding pleading must include all of the allegations from the original
complaint on which Plaintiff continues to rely, as well as his additional allegations.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of December 2012.
_________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
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?