Williams v. Department of Children and Family Services State of Louisiana et al
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 34 , 35 motions are GRANTED. All of Plaintiff's claims against the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Children and Family Services, and Mandy Pierre are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the State's sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 5/8/2017. (mmv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GARLAND E. WILLIAMS
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are two motions to dismiss. The State of
Louisiana, through the Department of Children and Family Services
(“DCFS”), filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction,” because the state is entitled to sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Rec. Doc. 35. Defendant Mandy Pierre, an employee of DCFS, filed
a “Motion to Dismiss Mandy Pierre” pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rec. Doc. 34. The motions were set for
Plaintiff’s memoranda in opposition was due on or before April 11,
2017. No memoranda in opposition have been filed. Further, no party
filed a motion to continue the noticed submission date or a motion
for extension of time within which to oppose the motion. While pro
se litigants are provided greater leniency in certain areas, they
are still obligated, like represented parties, to comply with all
court orders, rules, and deadlines. Frazier v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 541 F. App’x 419, 422 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing United States
v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)). Thus, the motions
are deemed to be unopposed. It further appearing to the Court that
the motions have merit,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions (Rec. Docs. 34-35) are GRANTED.
All of Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Louisiana, through
the Department of Children and Family Services, and Mandy Pierre
are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the State’s
sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim.
A motion for reconsideration of this Order, based on the
appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, if any, must be filed
Because such a motion would not have been necessary had timely
opposition memoranda been filed, the costs incurred in connection
with the motion, including attorneys’ fees, may be assessed against
the party moving for reconsideration. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16, 83. A
statement of costs and fees conforming to Local Rules 54.2 and
54.3 shall be submitted by all parties desiring to be awarded costs
and attorneys’ fees no later than eight (8) days prior to the
noticed submission date of the motion for reconsideration.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of May, 2017.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?