Randle v. Tregre et al

Filing 65

ORDER AND REASONS denying 61 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/8/2015. (blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DARNELL RANDLE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 15-395

MIKE TREGRE, ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion 1 for reconsideration filed by plaintiff, Darnell Randle
(“Randle”). Randle asks this Court to reconsider that portion of its order and reasons 2 granting
summary judgment in favor of former defendant, Justin Bordelon (“Bordelon”), in his individual
capacity.
The basis for plaintiff’s motion is his belief that defendants Hardy Schexnayder and Travis
Thomas’s accusations of misconduct against Bordelon 3 create a genuine issue of material fact that
precludes summary judgment on plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Bordelon. 4 Plaintiff
advanced this same argument in his original opposition 5 to the motion for partial summary
judgment. As explained by this Court both in its order and reasons 6 and in the pretrial conference,
however, Randle specifically and unequivocally exonerated Bordelon in his deposition.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s own admission belies the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.

1

R. Doc. No. 61. Although this motion is noticed for submission on January 6, 2016, and no
motion for expedited consideration has been filed, the Court finds it appropriate to decide the
motion on an expedited basis given the imminent trial date.
2
R. Doc. No. 59.
3
The accusations plaintiff cites were made in Schexnayder and Thomas’s statements in the internal
affairs’ report and, with respect to Thomas, were apparently repeated during his deposition. R.
Doc. No. 61-1, at 2–4.
4
R. Doc. No. 61-1, at 2–4.
5
R. Doc. No. 47, at 3.
6
R. Doc. No. 59, at 12.

As the Court has repeatedly emphasized, when asked by defense counsel, “So if Travis
[Thomas] and Hardy [Schexnayder] said that [Bordelon] hit you with the flashlight and punched
you, that would not be correct?” Randle responded “No, that’s not correct at all. They lying on
him.” Defense counsel repeated, “They would be lying on [Bordelon]?” and again Randle
responded, “Yeah, they lying on him. He never hit me.” 7 This exchange could hardly be clearer.
Randle’s counsel has not attempted to explain away his client’s admission. His failure to
address this testimony, which the Court unmistakably identified as the basis for its conclusion that
no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to Bordelon’s actions, is inexplicable and is
fatal to his motion.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, December 7, 2015.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

R. Doc. No. 31-5, at 30:120. Prior to the two statements quoted above Randle had actually twice
already said that Bordelon never hit him. R. Doc. No. 31-5, at 30:119.
2