Cain et al v. New Orleans City et al

Filing 74

ORDER AND REASONS regarding 59 Motion to Take Judicial Notice. See document for specific ruling. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/2/15. (jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALANA CAIN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 15-4479

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.

SECTION: R(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Defendants move the Court
to judicially notice the following documents as the Court considers defendants’
pending motions to dismiss:1
(1)

Orleans Parish Criminal District Court records, including court
docket sheets and signed guilty pleas for named plaintiffs Alana
Cain, Ashton Brown, Renaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, and
Vanessa Maxwell. Defendants have not submitted similar records
for named plaintiff Thaddeus Long.2

(2)

Orleans Parish Criminal District Court transcript of the plea
hearing held on May 30, 2013, for named plaintiff Alana Cain

1

R. Doc. 59. The “Orleans Parish Criminal District Court
Defendants” are the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, the Judicial
Administrator Robert J. Kazik, and Judges White, Davillier, Willard,
Waldron, Johnson, Pittman, Williams, Buras, Herman, Derbigny, Hunter,
Ziblich, and Cantrell. See id.
2

See R. Doc. 59, Exhibit 1.

only. Defendants have not submitted plea hearing transcripts for
the other named plaintiffs.3
(3)

March 14, 2011 Judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District
Court, Parish of Baton Rouge.4

It is undisputed that the foregoing documents are all unsealed court
documents, and therefore matters of public record.5 Under Federal Rule of
Evidence 201, a court “may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to
reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined
from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid.
401. For a court deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “it is clearly proper .
. . to take judicial notice of matters of public record.” Funk v. Stryker Corp.,
631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d
454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’
motion to take judicial notice of these documents.
Defendants also move the Court to judicially notice certain “facts”
purportedly reflected in the documents, including:

3

See R. Doc. 59, Exhibit 2.

4

See R. Doc. 59, Exhibit 3.

5

See R. Doc. 68 at 1 (“Plaintiffs’ Response to OPCDC Defendants’
Motion to Take Judicial Notice”).
2

(1)

each plaintiff pleaded guilty to the criminal charges giving rise to
the claims in this case;

(2)

each plaintiff was represented by counsel during the criminal
court proceedings;

(3)

none of the plaintiffs raised indigency as a defense to the court’s
order that they pay fees and costs;

(4)

all of the plaintiffs’ criminal proceedings except Reynaud Variste’s
remain open and ongoing; and

(5)

on March 14, 2011, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court issued
an order compelling the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court
judges to assess a $35.00 fee in all cases in which a criminal
defendant is convicted.6

The Court will judicially notice that Cain, Brown, Renaud Variste,
Reynajia Variste, and Maxwell were represented by counsel and pled guilty to
certain criminal charges, as reflected by the Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court records.7 The Court will also judicially notice that on March 14, 2011,
the Nineteenth Judicial District Court ordered the named defendants in
Louisiana Public Defender Board, et al. v. Parker, et al. to assess a $35.00 fee

6

R. Doc. 59 at 1.

7

R. Doc. 59, Exhibit 1.
3

in all cases in which a criminal defendant is convicted, as reflected by the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court order.8
As to the named plaintiffs “rais[ing] indigency as a defense” and their
proceedings remaining “open and ongoing,” the Court finds these statements
to be overbroad, subject to interpretation, and/or represent conclusions
pertaining to the issues in this case. This is not appropriate for judicial notice
under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES

defendants’ motion to take judicial notice of these facts.

2nd
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _______ day of December, 2015.

___________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

R. Doc. 59, Exhibit 3.
4