Amir El v. Louisiana State et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 26 Motion to Dismiss. ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 3/31/2017. (gec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KING SANDI AMIR EL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-2125

LOUISIANA STATE, ET AL.

SECTION: “J”(2)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant,
the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana (“Jefferson Parish”). (R. Doc.
26.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Jefferson Parish’s
motion. Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the
record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Jefferson
Parish’s motion should be GRANTED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This litigation appears to stem from Plaintiff’s arrest in
May of 2015. On or around May 30, 2015, Plaintiff was stopped by
Defendant

Officer

grandmother’s

home.

D.

Boudreaux

Plaintiff

in

alleges

the

front

that

yard

Officer

of

his

Boudreaux

“aggressively demanded that Plaintiff identify himself” and to
produce his driver’s license. Plaintiff refused to produce any
identification but identified himself as “King Sandi Amir El, a
Moslem Moorish American.” Despite Plaintiff’s attempt to resist,
Officer Boudreaux then allegedly grabbed Plaintiff’s arm and led
him toward his police car. Plaintiff asserts that Officer Boudreaux
1

handcuffed him and again asked Plaintiff to identify himself.
Plaintiff “allowed his Clock of Destiny, Moorish Nationality Card,
to be observed” by Officer Boudreaux; other deputies then arrived
at the scene. One of the deputies who arrived on scene allegedly
told

Plaintiff,

“You’re

not

King,

you

are

Carlton

Morris.”

Plaintiff instructed the officer that his name is not Carlton
Morris, but rather King Sandi Amir El. Officer Boudreaux then told
Plaintiff to get into the police car voluntarily or he would use
his Taser on him. Thereafter, Plaintiff was transported to the
Jefferson Parish Correctional Center (“JPCC”). Plaintiff alleges
that at the JPCC he again identified himself as a Moslem Moorish
American but was mocked by Jefferson Parish deputies. While in the
JPCC, Plaintiff asserts that he was held under the false name of
Carlton Clennon Morris and identified on documents as “Negro” or
“black,” which Plaintiff also alleges is untrue.
Around June 2015, Plaintiff allegedly served an “affidavit of
objection in lieu of a motion, inclusive of affidavit in support
of

objection

with

supporting

documentary

Jefferson Parish District Attorney. 1

evidence”

on

the

Later, Plaintiff spoke with

the Jefferson Parish Criminal Commissioner, Paul H. Schneider, and
asked whether the District Attorney received these documents, to
which Commissioner Schneider allegedly responded, “You are Carlton

1

While it is not clear to the Court, it appears that Plaintiff was still
incarcerated at this time.
2

Morris.” Plaintiff alleges that he was “invidiously coerced by
[Commissioner Schneider]” into being documented as Carlton Clennon
Morris and identified as a “Negro.”
In September 2015, Plaintiff made an appearance at the 24th
Judicial District Courtroom and proclaimed that he was not a Negro,
black, or a colored person. 2 Thereafter, Commissioner Schneider
then allegedly stated, “You are black, and you are a Negro, and if
you say anything else I will hold you in contempt.” Plaintiff told
Commissioner Schneider that he was denying him his right to be
heard

and

that

Plaintiff

did

not

consent

to

being

held

“in

involuntary servitude for defending [his] honor and reputation.”
Commissioner Schneider ordered the courtroom officer to handcuff
Plaintiff and transport him to the JPCC. Plaintiff alleges that he
was held for approximately forty-eight hours without reprieve.
Plaintiff again alleges he was held under the name Carlton Clennon
Morris.
Finally, in January 2016, Plaintiff made another appearance
at the 24th Judicial District Courtroom. During proceedings before
the Honorable Raymond Steib, Plaintiff asserts that he was asked
to “please remove your hat” which was a “Moorish Fez.” Further,
Plaintiff alleges Judge Steib ordered Carlton Clennon Morris to

2

Again, Plaintiff does not make clear, but it appears Plaintiff was still
incarcerated at this time.
3

take a drug screening, but Plaintiff again alleges that he is not
Carlton Clennon Morris.
On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed this pro se and in forma
pauperis suit against Jefferson Parish and the State of Louisiana.
(R. Doc. 1.) Thereafter, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an
Amended

Complaint

and

named

the

following

individuals

as

Defendants: Governor John Bel Edwards, Jefferson Parish District
Attorney Paul Connick, D. Boudreaux, and Sherriff Newel Norman, in
their

personal

Plaintiff’s
claims,

and

Amended

including

official

capacities.

Complaint

numerous

includes

alleged

(R.

Docs.

thirty-five

constitutional

31,

32.)

different

violations,

against the four Defendants listed in the Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation from these Defendants and a
declaration that they are not permitted to refer to him as Carlton
Clennon

Morris.

Further,

Plaintiff

seeks

a

declaration

that

Defendants are not permitted to label or document him as Negro,
black, African, or colored person. On January 25, 2017, Jefferson
Parish filed the present Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim.

(R.

Doc.

26.)

Jefferson

Parish

argues

that

neither

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint nor his Amended Complaint allege
that the parish, as a political subdivision of the State of
Louisiana,

caused

Plaintiff

any

harm.

Accordingly,

Jefferson

Parish asks this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against it

4

with prejudice. Jefferson Parish’s motion is now before the Court
without oral argument
LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The
complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Dura Pharm., Inc. v.
Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). The allegations “must be simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
“Under

Rule

12(b)(6),

a

claim

may

be

dismissed

when

a

plaintiff fails to allege any set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief.” Taylor v. Books A Million,
Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing McConathy v. Dr.
Pepper/Seven Up Corp., 131 F.3d 558, 561 (5th Cir. 1998)). To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead
enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the
court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. A court must accept all
well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d
5

228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th
Cir. 1996). The court is not, however, bound to accept as true
legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at

678.

“[C]onclusory

allegations

or

legal

conclusions

masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a
motion to dismiss.” Taylor, 296 F.3d at 378.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint named the State of Louisiana
and Jefferson Parish as Defendants. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
makes clear that he seeks to hold four persons, Governor John Bel
Edwards, Paul D. Connick Jr., D. Boudreaux, and Sherriff Newell
Normand, in their individual and official capacities, liable for
the above-referenced conduct. “An amended complaint supersedes the
original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the
amended

complaint

specifically

refers

to

and

adopts

or

incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.” Stewart v. City
of Houston Police Dept., 372 F. App’x 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2010)
(quoting

King

v.

Dogan,

31

F.3d

344,

346

(5th

Cir.

1994)).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not list Jefferson Parish as a
Defendant

and

incorporate

does

by

not

specifically

reference,

refer

Plaintiff’s

to

and

Original

adopt,

nor

Complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Jefferson Parish have been
abandoned. See id. Moreover, even if Plaintiff had referenced
Jefferson Parish in his Original Complaint, neither Plaintiff’s
6

Original Complaint nor his Amended Complaint allege any facts that
would

allow

this

Court

to

draw

a

reasonable

inference

that

Jefferson Parish, in its capacity as a political subdivision of
the

State

of

misconduct.

Louisiana,

For

these

is

liable

reasons,

for

any

Plaintiff’s

of

the

alleged

claims

against

Jefferson Parish are dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against the
Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 31st day of March, 2017.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7