McManus v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff Office et al

Filing 20

ORDER AND REASONS 15 MOTION to Dismiss Case as Frivolous filed by William Boudreaux, Newell Normand, Christopher Morris. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo.(ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH MCMANUS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-2035

JEFFERSON PARISH
SHERIFF OFFICE, ET. AL

SECTION: “H”(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) filed by Defendants
Sheriff Newell Normand, Maj. William Boudreaux, and Sgt. Christopher
Morris. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On March 10, 2016, Plaintiff Joseph McManus (“McManus”) filed this
pro se civil action alleging that Defendants Sheriff Newell Normand, Maj.
William Boudreaux, and Sgt. Christopher Morris violated his civil rights by
failing to investigate certain claims of harassment and bring criminal charges
against his alleged harassers. Construed liberally, McManus sues Defendants
for compensatory damages under Section 1983.
According to the Complaint, McManus was working on a movie set at the
Louis Armstrong International Airport on January 9, 2015 when he was
dismissed by the Production Assistant for allegedly making obscene comments
1

to two women. McManus was escorted off the premises by two uniformed
Sheriff’s deputies.
McManus complained to the deputies that the women had been
harassing and threatening him—and not the other way around. McManus
alleges that his civil rights were violated when the deputies failed to show
interest in his version of events or investigate his complaint by interviewing
particular witnesses as he requested. McManus further claims that his civil
rights were violated when Defendants failed to arrest the women for allegedly
making threats to kill him in the airport.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
enough facts “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” 1 A claim is
“plausible on its face” when the pleaded facts allow the court to “draw
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 2
A court must accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and must “draw
all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” 3 The court need not, however,
accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. 4 To be legally
sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the
plaintiff’s claims are true. 5 If it is apparent from the face of the complaint that
an insurmountable bar to relief exists and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief,
1Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 547 (2007)).
2 Id.
3 Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).
4 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
5 Id.
2

the court must dismiss the claim. 6

The court’s review is limited to the

complaint and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are
central to the claim and referenced by the complaint. 7
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendants allege that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for three
reasons: (1) he lacks standing, (2) his claims are prescribed, and (3) his claims
are frivolous. Because this Court ultimately finds that Plaintiff’s claims have
prescribed, it need not address Defendants other arguments.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the incident upon which he bases
his allegations occurred on January 9. The police report confirms that the
incident occurred on January 9, 2015, and Plaintiff does not dispute this fact. 8
This suit was not filed until March 10, 2016.
“Because there is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, the
district court looks to the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury
claims. In Louisiana, personal injury claims are governed by La. Civ. Code
Art. 3492, which provides for a prescriptive period of one year from the date of
injury or damage.” 9 The one-year prescriptive period begins running from the
time that the Plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that forms
the basis of his claims. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff had one year from the date of
the incident, or January 9, 2016, within which to file his claim. 11 Because this
suit was not filed until March 10, 2016, Plaintiff’s claim is prescribed on its
Lormand, 565 F.3d at 255–57.
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
8 Because the police report is referenced by the Complaint and is central to Plaintiff’s
allegation that the police report was falsified, it is properly considered here. Id.
9 Carroll v. Gusman, No. 06-9031, 2009 WL 2949997, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 10, 2009)
(citing Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir.1998)).
10 Id.
11 See id.
6
7

3

face.

“When a petition reveals on its face that prescription has run, the

plaintiff has the burden of showing why the claim has not prescribed.” 12
Plaintiff has not identified any event that might have suspended or interrupted
the prescriptive period. Prescriptive periods are not suspended on weekends
and holidays, as Plaintiff suggests. 13

Accordingly, this Court finds that

Plaintiff’s claims have prescribed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 30th day of November, 2016.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13

Wimberly v. Gatch, 635 So. 2d 206, 211 (La. 1994).
See La. Civ. Code arts. 3462–3472.
4