Ayche et al v. Joyce et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Rec. Doc. 40 . IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed by Matt Clauss and Patricia Joyce, Rec. Docs. 29 and 35 , are GRANTED and that the claims against those defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Leon James, Curtis Johnson, Adrian Thompson, Randall Kuhn, and Newell Normand are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 7/13/2018.(sa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MEDRIC AYCHE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-1130

PATRICIA JOYCE, ET AL.

SECTION: “H”(1)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
relating to motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Matt Claus (Doc. 29) and
Patricia Joyce (Doc. 35). Plaintiffs failed to file their objections to the Report
and Recommendation within the extended time that the Court allowed, but the
Court considers them nonetheless. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report
and Recommendation de novo. Considering the entire record, the Court adopts
the Report and Recommendation with the following additional reasoning.
In Plaintiffs’ objections, they argue that their complaint for defamation
does allege that the stigma created by the defamation was associated with the
infringement of a federally protected interest. 1 Plaintiffs point to two alleged

1

See Geter v. Fortenberry, 849 F.2d 1550, 1557 (5th Cir. 1988).

1

infringements: that Plaintiff Medric Ayche was allegedly shot by third parties
acting on the belief that the defamatory statements were true and that the
defamatory statements were associated with searches of Plaintiffs’ property.
Even assuming that such deprivations are sufficiently connected to the
defamation, neither concern a federally-protected interest. As to the former,
Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege that the shooters were acting on behalf of
or in concert with the state and therefore fails to allege the deprivation of a
right protected by § 1983. 2
As to the latter, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege that the searches
violated a federally-protected right. Plaintiffs do not allege that the searches
took place without a warrant or lacked probable cause. Instead, Plaintiffs
appear to allege that the searches failed to produce any evidence and to seek
compensation for property seized and damaged during the searches. No federal
right protects against unsuccessful searches. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not
alleged that they have either exhausted state processes available to seek
compensation for damaged property or that resort to state processes would be
inadequate. Therefore Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for the deprivation
of due process. 3 Because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the violation of a
federally-protected right associated with the alleged defamation, Plaintiffs fail
to state a claim for defamation actionable under § 1983.
With respect to their claims against Defendant Patricia Joyce, Plaintiffs’
additional allegations detailed in their objections to the Report and
Recommendation still fail to state a claim. Plaintiffs allege that Joyce signed
search warrants knowing that they lacked probable cause and that Joyce was

2
3

See Moody v. Farrell, 868 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017).
See Alexander v. Ieyoub, 62 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 1995). Nor have Plaintiffs alleged that
the State has delegated to Defendants the authority to destroy property during a search.
See id.

2

conspiring with Defendant Claus to injure Plaintiffs based on her personal
connection to the case. Judicial immunity extends even to intentional acts that
lie within the judicial function. 4 Because Plaintiffs’ allegations against
Defendant Joyce are for acts performed in her judicial function, Plaintiffs’
claims are barred by absolute judicial immunity.
The Magistrate Judge, pursuant to power to screen complaints filed in
forma pauperis, also recommended that the remainder of Plaintiffs’ complaint
be dismissed for the failure to make any specific factual allegations against
Defendants Leon James, Curtis Johnson, Adrian Thompson, Randall Kuhn,
and Newell Normand. In their objections, Plaintiffs attempt to clarify their
claims, but do not add any particular factual allegations. The bare assertion
that a defendant lied or failed to train his subordinates is insufficiently specific
to state a claim under § 1983. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiffs still fail to state claims
against the remaining Defendants.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby approves the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its
opinion in this matter with the additional reasons as set forth above.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed by Matt Clauss and
Patricia Joyce, Rec. Docs. 29 and 35, are GRANTED and that the claims
against those defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Leon James,
Curtis Johnson, Adrian Thompson, Randall Kuhn, and Newell Normand are

4

5

See Johnson v. Kegans, 870 F.2d 992, 995 (5th Cir. 1989) (“It is well established that judges
are absolutely immune from liability for judicial acts that are not performed in clear
absence of all jurisdiction, however erroneous the act and however evil the motive.”).
See Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232, 255–57 (5th Cir. 2009).

3

DISMISSED

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 13th day of July, 2018.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4