Griffith v. City of New Orleans

Filing 18

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss Case; denying 15 Motion to Strike ; denying 17 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TAMMY GRIFFITH

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-1435

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

SECTION: "A" (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
The following motions are before the Court: Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 12) filed by the City of New Orleans; Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc.
15) and Motion for Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 17) filed by plaintiff Tammy Griffith. The
motions are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
This case arises out of a discovery controversy that occurred in Civil Action 11-245 c/w
11-535. Tammy Griffith, plaintiff herein, is also the plaintiff in case number 11-245 ("CA11245"). Griffith's suit in CA11-245 is based on allegations of gender-based discrimination and
harassment by former Orleans Parish Juvenile Court (“OPJC”) Judge David Bell, and other
alleged retaliatory conduct by the other judges on the court. A jury trial in that case is
scheduled to commence on November 3, 2014.
The events giving rise to the instant action first occurred on August 17, 2012, while the
City of New Orleans was still a defendant in CA11-245. The City's attorney attempted to
question Griffith at her deposition about two disciplinary documents ("the Documents") that
purported to come from Griffith's personnel file with OPJC.1 According to Griffith, the

Because of the unusual relationship that state law imposes on the City of New Orleans
with respect to OPJC, (see CA11-245, Rec. Doc. 300), the City maintains the personnel files for
OPJC employees.
1

1

Documents were not part of the personnel file that the City had produced to counsel on
February 9, 2012, and they lacked any indicia of authenticity. On January 28, 2013, the Court
dismissed all claims against the City in CA11-245. (CA11-245,Rec. Doc. 300).
On June 16, 2014, Griffith was re-deposed in CA11-245, and the attorney for OPJC
attempted to question her about the Documents. According to the deposition transcript from
June 16, 2014, the Documents were attached as exhibits to Griffith's 2012 deposition with the
City. (CA11-245, Griffith 6/16/14 deposition at 137).
Griffith filed the instant suit against the City on June 19, 2014, alleging that the City,
through its attorneys, conspired with OPJC to violate her rights under federal law as
recognized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) - (3), and 1986.2 Griffith suggests that counsel for OPJC
represented that he must have obtained the documents "from the record" because they were
attached to Plaintiff's deposition taken by the City of New Orleans. (Comp. ¶ 26). Counsel for
Griffith later perused all 433 documents in "the record" of 11-245 c/w 11-535 and confirmed
that the Documents are not "in the record."3 (Comp. ¶ 29).
The City now moves to dismiss the complaint and seeks sanctions against Griffith's
counsel for filing what the City believes to be a frivolous lawsuit. Although none of the City's

Griffith has sued OPJC in the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish.
(Rec. Doc. 1, Comp. n.1).
2

The Court does not infer that anything untoward occurred with respect to the
Documents simply because counsel for OPJC mentioned that they must have come from the
"record" even though as it turns out the Documents are not "in the record" with this Court, i.e.,
filed into the CM/ECF system. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(1) precludes parties from
filing discovery responses into the record until they are used in conjunction with a motion. And
when depositions are filed in CM/ECF as part of motions for summary judgment, they are often
filed without their exhibits. But perhaps even more importantly, counsel for OPJC stated on the
record at Griffith's June 16, 2014 deposition that the Documents were attached to the 2012
deposition taken by the City and one could easily interpret this to mean that they are "in the
record." Nothing in Griffith's complaint suggests that the documents were not in fact attached to
the 2012 deposition as counsel stated.
3

2

proffered arguments in support of dismissal are meritorious or legally correct, the Court is
persuaded that the complaint nonetheless fails to state a claim for relief under federal law.
Section 1985 is a civil conspiracy statute.4 The law in this circuit recognizes that a §

42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), entitled Obstructing Justice; Intimidating Party, Witness, or
Juror, provides:
4

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by
force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the
United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any
matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such
party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so
attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or
indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure
such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict,
presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his
being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire
for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in
any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with
intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to
injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to
enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal
protection of the laws.
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), entitled Depriving Persons of Rights or Privileges, provides:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in
disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the
purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class
of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges
and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or
hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from
giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the
equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to
prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully
entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal
manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified
person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member
of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or
property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of
conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged
therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object
of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or
property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege
of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may
have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury
or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

3

1985(2) or (3) claim must be grounded on racial animus, not gender animus. Bryan v. City of
Madison, 213 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Newberry v. East Tex. State Univ., 161 F.3d
276, 281 n.2 5th Cir. 1988)); Mitchell v. City of Sugar Land, No. 10-223, 2011 WL 1156253, at
*8 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2011) (citing Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 202-03 (5th Cir. 1989)).
Racial animus forms no part of the complaint in either of Griffith's cases. But even if gender
animus satisfies the class-based animus requirement of §§ 1985(2) & (3), the claims still fail
because a municipality cannot as a matter of law enter into a conspiracy. Batiste v. City of
Beaumont, 421 F. Supp. 2d 969, 988 (E.D. Tex. 2005); Mitchell, 2011 WL 1156253, at *8
(citing Benningfield v. City of Houston, 157 F.3d 369, 378 (5th Cir. 1998); Hiliard v. Ferguson,
30 F.3d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)). Griffith has no plausible claim under § 1985 and without a §
1985 claim she cannot state a claim under § 1986. Bryant, 213 F.3d at 276. To the extent that
Griffith seeks to state a claim against the City in her amended complaint under § 1983, that
claim fails because it does not comprise the elements for municipality liability under Monell v.
New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
To the extent that the complaint states any claims under state law, the Court declines
jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec.
Doc. 12) filed by the City of New Orleans is GRANTED as follows: All federal claims against
the City of New Orleans are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; all state law claims against
the City of New Orleans are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the request for
sanctions is DENIED;

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 15) and
Motion for Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 17) filed by plaintiff Tammy Griffith are DENIED.
September 22, 2014
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5