Bey v. 24th Judicial Court et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss Case; 26 Motion to Dismiss Case; 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; and 30 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/15/2015. (tsf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KHARA AMUN BEY,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2457

24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: "E" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
This is a civil action in which the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis.

Plaintiff alleges his civil rights were violated during certain criminal

proceedings before the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court ("24th JDC") and the
Second Parish Court of Jefferson Parish ("2nd Parish Court"). Plaintiff further alleges
he was mistreated while incarcerated at the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center
("JPCC"). Plaintiff has filed suit against the 24th JDC, the 2nd Parish Court, the JPCC,
and Jefferson Parish (the "Parish").
Defendants have separately moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.1 The 2nd Parish Court has also moved to
dismiss for insufficient service of process. For the following reasons, the Court finds
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any Defendant.2 The Motions are GRANTED,
and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1
2

R. Docs. 10, 26, 29, 30.
Accordingly, the Court need not decide whether the 2nd Parish Court was properly served.

1

LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough facts
"to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."3 A claim is "plausible on its face"
when the pleaded facts, accepted as true, allow the court to "draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."4 In reviewing the
instant motions, the Court is mindful that "pro se complaints are held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."5
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's claims are governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.6 Section 1983 provides a
private right of action to redress violations of federal law by any "person" acting under
color of state law.7 It is well established that as Louisiana state courts, neither the 24th
JDC nor the 2nd Parish Court is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983.8 It is
equally well established that parish prisons such as the JPCC are not juridical entities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
5 Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981).
6 Plaintiff purports to bring his constitutional and extra-constitutional claims directly. See R. Doc. 14, ¶ 2.
With respect to the former, the Fifth Circuit has held that Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for seeking
relief against state actors who violate a plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Hearth, Inc. v. Dept. of Public
Welfare, 617 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1980); Mitchell v. City of Hous., Tex., 57 F. App'x 211, at *1 (5th Cir.
2003) ("When a statutory mechanism is available, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 being a prime example, plaintiffs must
invoke its protection."). Plaintiff has also asserted claims for violations of the "United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" and the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." See
R. Doc. 1, p. 8. Plaintiff provides no authority—nor can this court find any—to suggest these
treaties/documents create substantive rights that can be enforced in federal court.
7 42 U.S.C. 1983.
8 See, e.g., Spikes v. O'Berry, No. 14-2968, 2015 WL 1758053, at *5 (E.D. La. Apr. 17, 2015) ("[A] state
court is not a person for purposes of suit under Section 1983."); Wilkerson v. 17th Judicial Dist. Court,
Parish of Lafourche, No. 08-1196, 2009 WL 249737, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 30, 2009) ("[A] state court is not
a 'person' subject to suit under § 1983."); Schwertz v. Garner, No. 09-018, 2009 WL 348556, at *2 (E.D.
La. Feb. 9, 2009) ("[S]tate courts are not juridical entities capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.").
3

4

2

capable of being sued.9 Because the JDC, Second Parish Court, and JPCC are not proper
party defendants, the claims against them must be dismissed.
The Parish, on the other hand, is a proper party defendant in a 1983 action. A
civil rights claim may be brought against a state or local governing body "where official
policy or governmental custom is responsible for a deprivation of rights protected by the
Constitution."10

Broadly construed,11 Plaintiff's complaint alleges the Parish is

responsible for the conditions of confinement at the JPCC.
Plaintiff has not identified any policy or custom of the Parish causally related to
the conditions of confinement at the JPCC. Nor could he. Under Louisiana law, "the
sheriff's office, not the parish, controls the inmates of the jail, the employees of the jail,
and the daily management and operation of the jail."12 Because local governments
cannot be held liable for the actions of municipal employees they do not control,13
Louisiana courts routinely dismiss 1983 suits against parishes based on the conditions
of confinement in a parish jail.14 "The proper defendant for [a 1983] claim concerning
the conditions of confinement in a parish jail is the parish sheriff in his official
capacity.15

See, e.g., Wetzel v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, 610 F. Supp. 2d 545, 548 (E.D. La. 2009) ("[U]nder federal
law, a county (or parish) prison facility, is not a 'person' within the meaning of [Section 1983]."); Williams
v. Louisiana, No. 08-4470, 2008 WL 4811178, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 29, 2008) ("A prison or jail is not a
'person' subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.").
10 Gelin v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 456 F.3d 525, 527 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
11 Plaintiff does not make any direct allegations against the Parish.
12 Salvagio v. Doe, No. 13-5182, 2013 WL 6623921, at *3 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2013).
13 Broussard v Foti, No. Civ.A. 00-2318, 2001 WL 258055, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2001).
14 See, e.g., Salvagio, 2013 WL 6623921, at *3 ("Because plaintiff's allegations focus on the legality of his
detention . . . the parish cannot be held liable for any misconduct on the part of the sheriff's employees
with respect to plaintiff's detention."); Dolan v. Parish of St. Tammany, No. 12-2911, 2013 WL 3270616,
at *2–4 (E.D. La. June 26, 2013); Ates v. Terrebonne Parish, No. 13-5752, 2013 WL 6858455, at *3 (E.D.
La. Dec. 30, 2013); Jones v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, 4 F. Supp. 2d 606, 613 (E.D. La. 1998); Broussard,
2001 WL 258055, at *2; Williams, 2008 WL 4811178, at *3.
15 Williamson v. Louisiana, No. 08-4598, 2008 WL 5082911, at *3 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2008); Wetzel v.
Strain, No. 09-6353, 2010 WL 521008, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 9, 2010).
9

3

CONCLUSION
As a general rule, the district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6) without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.16 Plaintiff has
already amended his complaint once.17 More importantly, the district court need not
permit further amendment if there is "no viable claim [the plaintiff] could include in an
amended petition with regard to the[] underlying facts."18 As set forth above, Plaintiff
cannot state a legally cognizable claim against any of the named Defendants. For this
reason, dismissal with prejudice is warranted.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of May, 2015.
___________ __ ________ ________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).
See R. Doc. 9.
18 See Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
16
17

4