Jones v. Cannizzaro et al
Filing
311
ORDER AND REASONS: DENYING 216 Motion for Reconsideration, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 8/26/2020. (am)
Case 2:18-cv-00503-JTM-DPC Document 311 Filed 08/26/20 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROBERT JONES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 18-503
LEON CANNIZZARO ET AL.
SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 216).
For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Robert Jones brings claims against Orleans Parish District
Attorney Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. (“OPDA”) in his official capacity under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for damages caused by Jones’s wrongful conviction and 23-year
incarceration on charges connected to a crime spree. Plaintiff’s conviction was
vacated for Brady violations on October 8, 2014 by the Louisiana Fourth
1
Case 2:18-cv-00503-JTM-DPC Document 311 Filed 08/26/20 Page 2 of 6
Circuit Court of Appeal (the “Post-Conviction Case”). 1 The charges against him
were ultimately dismissed.
In a prior motion, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the portion
of his § 1983 claim that requires him to establish that the Defendant violated
his Brady rights. This Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and held that the
doctrine of res judicata applies to preclude relitigation of the Brady violations
found by the Fourth Circuit in the Post-Conviction Case. Defendant now moves
for reconsideration of that holding.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states that “any order or other
decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to
any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of
a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.” “Under Rule 54(b), ‘the trial court is free to reconsider and reverse
its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new
evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law.’” 2
“‘[T]he power to reconsider or modify interlocutory rulings is committed to the
discretion of the district court, and that discretion is not cabined by the
heightened standards for reconsideration governing final orders.’” 3
See Jones v. Cain, 151 So. 3d 781, 802 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014).
Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., No. 16-10502, 2017 WL 1379453, at *9 (5th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990)).
3 Id. (quoting Saint Annes Dev. Co. v. Trabich, 443 Fed. Appx. 829, 831–32 (4th Cir.
2011)).
2
1
2
Case 2:18-cv-00503-JTM-DPC Document 311 Filed 08/26/20 Page 3 of 6
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On May 28, 2019, this Court held that Plaintiff had carried his burden
to show that res judicata applies to preclude relitigation of the Brady violations
found by the Fourth Circuit in his Post-Conviction Case. 4 In so holding, this
Court refused to find that exceptional circumstances should preclude the
application of res judicata. 5 Specifically, the Court rejected Defendant’s
argument that exceptional circumstances were present because “there is
reason to doubt the quality and extensiveness of the procedures followed” in
the Post-Conviction Case. 6 The Court held that Defendant was asking this
Court to relitigate issues already decided by the Fourth Circuit and that its
“argument undercuts the policy behind the doctrine of res judicata—‘to
promote judicial efficiency and final resolution of disputes by preventing
needless relitigation.’” 7 Defendant now asks this Court to reconsider this
holding pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Louisiana Revised Statutes § 13:4232 states that “[a] judgment does not
bar another action by the plaintiff [w]hen exceptional circumstances justify
relief from the res judicata effect of the judgment.” The Louisiana Supreme
Court has stated that “[t]he ‘exceptional circumstances’ exception generally
applies to complex procedural situations in which litigants are deprived of the
opportunity to present their claims due to unanticipated quirks in the system,
to factual situations that could not be anticipated by the parties, or to decisions
that are totally beyond the control of the parties.” 8 “[S]uch relief should be
Doc. 117.
Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 156 So. 3d 645, 648 (La. 2014).
3
4
5
Case 2:18-cv-00503-JTM-DPC Document 311 Filed 08/26/20 Page 4 of 6
granted only in truly exceptional cases, otherwise the purpose of res judicata
would be defeated.” 9
Defendant argues that there are exceptional circumstances in this case
that render the application of res judicata inappropriate. Specifically,
Defendant argues that discovery in this matter has revealed that the Fourth
Circuit’s findings were “demonstrably false.” The Fourth Circuit found that:
[OPDA’s] failure to produce evidence of: (1) the age estimate of the
perpetrator; (2) the lack of any mention of gold teeth by the victims
on the night of the robberies/kidnapping/rape; (3) the perpetrator’s
statement that he was taking [the rape victim] to his “neck of the
woods;” and (4) Lester’s crime spree and the police belief that
Lester committed all of the crimes, added together, violated Brady
in that all of this evidence was material, and its omission
undermined confidence in the jury’s verdict. 10
Defendant argues that these findings are inaccurate. Defendant
contends that (1) a description of the perpetrator was actually provided to
Plaintiff and that he had, in fact, failed to attach the full report provided to
him to his application for post-conviction relief; (2) discovery in this case
revealed that Robert Jones was from the Desire housing project where the rape
occurred and spent a lot of time there; and (3) there is no support for the court’s
finding that crime spree evidence was not disclosed. It argues then that the
Fourth Circuit’s holding that the OPDA committed Brady violations was
erroneous, and it asks that this Court to exercise its discretion to find that res
judicata does not apply.
9
LA. REV. STAT. § 13:4232 cmt.
Jones, 151 So. 3d at 802.
10
4
Case 2:18-cv-00503-JTM-DPC Document 311 Filed 08/26/20 Page 5 of 6
Defendant does not, however, cite to any case or law suggesting that an
opinion that is “demonstrably false” does not deserve the application of res
judicata. Likewise, Defendant does not cite to any case or law suggesting that
an error in a court’s opinion is an exceptional circumstance for which res
judicata need not apply. Indeed, there is nothing exceptional about not
agreeing with a court’s opinion. It is well settled that “[t]he question whether
[a] judgment on the merits was correct . . . does not enter into [the] inquiry on
the subject of res judicata, for even an incorrect judgment is entitled to res
judicata effect.” 11 “The indulgence of a contrary view would result in creating
elements of uncertainty and confusion and in undermining the conclusive
character of judgments, consequences which it was the very purpose of the
doctrine of res judicata to avert.” 12 Accordingly, this argument does not
persuade this Court to reconsider its prior holding.
Defendant next argues that res judicata should not apply in this case
because its application would not prevent litigation or promote efficiency. That
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 500 (5th Cir. 2004) (“As a
learned treatise puts it, ‘[r]es judicata applies even if the next court to visit the dispute
believes that the second court’s res judicata ruling was wrong.’” 18 WRIGHT, MILLER &
COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 2D § 4404 (2d ed. 2002)); see e.g., City of
Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290, 297 (2013) (“A court’s power to decide a case is
independent of whether its decision is correct, which is why even an erroneous judgment is
entitled to res judicata effect.”); Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398–99,
101 S. Ct. 2424, 2428, 69 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1981) (“[A]n erroneous conclusion reached by the
court in the first suit does not deprive the defendants in the second action of their right to
rely upon the plea of res judicata.... A judgment merely voidable because based upon an
erroneous view of the law is not open to collateral attack, but can be corrected only by a direct
review and not by bringing another action upon the same cause [of action].” (internal
quotations omitted)); Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460, 466 (5th Cir. 2013) (“This
principle that controversies once decided shall remain in repose, known as res judicata, does
not depend upon whether or not the prior judgment was right.” (internal quotation omitted)).
12 Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 201 (1932).
5
11
Case 2:18-cv-00503-JTM-DPC Document 311 Filed 08/26/20 Page 6 of 6
is, even if Plaintiff need not relitigate whether his Brady rights were violated,
he will still need to introduce the same evidence to prove the causation element
of his § 1983 claim. It argues therefore that the application of res judicata will
create “inefficiency, confusion, and additional litigation about collateral
issues.” 13 Even so, Defendant still fails to show that this is an exceptional
circumstance. There is nothing exceptional about a circumstance where res
judicata satisfies one element of a claim and similar evidence must be
introduced to prove another. Further, Defendant’s arguments continue to
ignore the policy behind the doctrine of res judicata—“‘that there be an end of
litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result
of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled
as between the parties.’” 14 With these policies in mind, the doctrine of res
judicata applies to preclude relitigation of the Brady violations found by the
Fourth Circuit in the Post-Conviction Case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 26th day of August, 2020.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Doc. 216.
Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 574 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 401 (1981)).
6
13
14
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?