Reed v. Edwards et al

Filing 73

ORDER AND REASONS granting 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and in the Alternative MOTION to Stay filed by Brian Blache, Sid Gautreaux and Chasity Sanford, 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by James M. LeBlanc and Heath Soileau, and 41 MOTION to Dismiss ON THE BASIS OF PRESCRIPTION filed by Mike Edwards and Charles Mondrick. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 2/9/2012. (tsf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARIE REED

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 11-0030

MIKE EDWARDS, OFFICER OF THE
BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

SECTION "F"

ORDER AND REASONS
Before

the

Court

are

three

motions:

the

defendants

Sid

Gautreaux, Brian Blache, and Chasity Sanford’s motion to dismiss
and, in the alternative, motion to stay; (2) the defendants James
M. LeBlanc and Heath Soileau’s motion to dismiss; and (3) the
defendants Michael Edwards and Charles Mondrick’s Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss on the basis of prescription.

For the reasons

that follow, the motions are GRANTED insofar as they seek to
dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on the ground that they are timebarred.

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over any remaining state law claims.
Background
This civil rights lawsuit arises out of one woman’s numerous
claims that several law enforcement officers falsely arrested her,
falsely imprisoned her, and assaulted her.

The facts underlying

her complaint are summarized as follows.
On October 31, 2003 Marie Reed pled guilty in state court in
Baton Rouge to one count of theft (over $500); 19 counts of issuing
worthless checks; 42 counts of forgery; three counts of theft by
1

fraud; five counts of theft (over $500) and two counts of theft
(between $100-$500).

She was sentenced to 10 years at hard labor,

all sentences to run concurrently, with credit for time served,
suspended; probation for five years, with restitution in the amount
of $35,036.42, to be paid during the probation period.
Heath Soileau was Reed’s probation officer. During the course
of her probation, motions to revoke her probation were filed, and
a warrant for her arrest was issued in October 2004.

Once the 2004

warrant

“came

was

lifted,

Reed

and

Soileau

somehow

understanding as to how her probation would continue.”

to

an

Soileau

sent a letter to the state court asking the court to continue Reed
on probation.
However, on September 18, 2007 Soileau sent another letter to
the court, accompanied by a motion to revoke Reed’s probation
because Reed was $22,562.50 delinquent in restitution payments.1
The hearing to revoke her probation was scheduled for November 19,
2007. Reed failed to appear.

An arrest warrant was issued.

During the fall of 2007 and the summer of 2008 Reed and
Soileau began to communicate again, and she believed that they had
“come to an understanding once again, and she was continuing to pay
the restitution in anticipation of her probation ending in October
of 2008.”

On July 28, 2008 Reed’s attorney received an itemized

1

According to the allegations of the complaint, the
implication of Soileau’s September 18 letter was that Reed had
paid $12,473.92 from the original amount of restitution.
2

list from the Office of Probation and Parole Collections showing
outstanding restitution owed, which totaled $11,429.47 (Reed having
apparently paid $11,133.03 from the amount due on September 18,
2007). Reed’s probation ended on October 31, 2008, “having paid or
attempted payment to all of the remaining victims, through the
Office of Probation and Parole....”
Four months later, on February 28, 2009, Reed was stopped for
an alleged traffic violation by Officer Michael Edwards of the
Baton Rouge City Police.

Officer Edwards examined Reed’s driver’s

license and talked to her about the traffic violation and then told
her that she was free to go.

Reed drove away, forgetting to get

her driver’s license back from the officer.

Later that night,

Officer Edwards contacted Reed’s mother, Linda Jenkins, at her home
in an attempt to return Reed’s license. Officer Edwards told Ms.
Jenkins to call Reed and let him speak with her, which she did.
Officer Edwards requested that Reed meet him late that night at a
random parking lot he chose.

Scared, Reed told him that she would

like to speak with her lawyer before doing so.

Reed charges that

Officer Edwards became angry and threatened Reed when she refused
to meet him.2

Reed did not meet with Officer Edwards.

2

According to the allegations of the complaint, Officer
Edwards told Reed something to the effect of:
I am not going to hurt you.... You can speak to an
attorney all you want, but if you don’t come meet me
tonight, you will be sorry. You do not want to mess
with me, I am next to God, I have put lawyers, judges
and Das in jail.... I will put you in jail if you do
3

About

a

week

later,

Detective

Sergeant

Brian

J.

Blache

obtained an arrest warrant for Reed on theft charges related to her
employment with a company named CTV and Associates.

Reed charges

that Detective Blache did so “at the request and/or encouragement
of Officer Michael Edwards and in a conspiracy to violate [her]
civil rights.”
The saga continues.
On July 21, 2009 Reed was arrested by U.S. Marshals during a
warrant round-up.

At the time of her arrest there were three

warrants outstanding on Reed:
(1)

a Probation and Parole warrant from the 23rd Judicial
District Court, related to Reed’s probation (even though
it had ended on October 31, 2008); Reed says the warrant
had been held over solely because of the negligence of
Probation and Parole Officer Heath Soileau;

(2)

a warrant obtained by Officer Michael Edwards related to
the February 28, 2009 traffic stop; and

(3)

a warrant obtained by Detective Sergeant Brian J. Blache
related to charges arising from a civil transaction
related to Reed’s employment with CTV and Associates.

Reed complains not only that the Probation Warrant was negligently
held over as a result of Soileau’s negligence, but also that the
Traffic Warrant and the CTV Warrant were fraudulently obtained.

not meet me now.
4

Probation Warrant
Sometime between August 1, 2009 and August 15, 2009 Reed
posted a bond with a surety in the amount of $35,000 to cover the
charges related to the traffic stop and theft and to facilitate her
release from the East Baton Rouge Parish Jail.

She was then

transported to the Ascension Parish Jail, where she was held
pursuant to the Probation Warrant.
Reed

alleges

that

she

was

wrongfully

held

over

on

the

Probation Warrant as a result of Soileau’s negligence; he did not
attempt to serve the warrant, which was issued on November 19, 2007
when she failed to show up for her revocation hearing, and Soileau
never informed her of the arrest warrant despite their continued
communication in person and through her attorney throughout the
spring, summer, and fall of 2008.

During the many communications

with Soileau, Reed had expressed a desire to complete all the
requirements of her probation, knowing that it was coming to an end
in October 2008.
She

alleges

Hence Soileau’s fault.
that

Soileau

allowed

the

probation

hold

to

continue and adds that Soileau conspired with Officer Edwards when
Soileau on July 23, 2009 filed a motion and order to revoke her
probation.

In the motion to revoke probation, Soileau does not

assert any arrears in restitution but, rather, refers to the
charges relating to the Traffic Warrant, the CTV Warrant, as well
as a charge for issuing worthless checks.

5

(Reed acknowledges

writing a bad check to her dentist and represents that “[t]his
matter is being discharged in the 19th Judicial District Court.”).
September 22, 2009 was the scheduled date for the revocation
hearing.

It did not happen.

Reed’s attorney appeared on her

behalf and requested a continuance.3
court on September 22).

(Soileau was not present in

That afternoon Reed appeared in court and

was informed of the continuance; the hearing was continued until
November 17, 2009, over her objection.
On November 17, 2009 Reed was present with new counsel,
Maurice Hall, at which time the State requested a continuance
because Soileau was not present. The court granted the continuance
and reset the motion for January 19, 2010.

On that date Reed was

present in court with her attorney, but Soileau again was not
present.

The State again requested a continuance, which the court

granted and reset the motion for March 15, 2010.

However, this

time, the court ordered that the probation hold be lifted and
ordered Reed’s release.
On March 15, 2010 new counsel for Reed, Jarrett Ambeau,
enrolled at the probation revocation proceeding.
happen either.

But it didn’t

Soileau was present at the March 15 hearing.

Ambeau, however, requested a continuance, which was granted; the
hearing was reset for April 19, 2010.

3

But after many more delays,

Reed says that the attorney that appeared on her behalf had
been fired before the hearing.
6

the hearing was reset for August 16, 2010, at which time it was
finally held.4
During the August 16 hearing, says Reed, Soileau argued
“vigorously, and with malice” that Reed’s probation should be
revoked and that she should be confined for her original 10 year
sentence.

According to Reed, the 23rd Judicial District Court

issued its ruling on August 26, 2010, finding that “...Probation
and Parole failed to satisfy [the] due process requirements of
[Reed], and her probation was terminated.”
The Traffic Warrant
On June 7, 2010 the traffic charges from the February 28, 2009
stop by Officer Edwards were dismissed in their entirety, without
a hearing and without presenting any evidence.

Reed alleges that

Officer Edwards himself dropped the charges “because he had been
informed by...Soileau that the matters in the 23rd Judicial District
Court were not going well, and that it appeared that the probation
may not be held against [Reed].”
CTV Warrant
On March 18, 2009 Detective Sergeant Brian J. Blache swore in
an affidavit against Reed relating to her alleged fraud concerning
CTV and Associates. In the affidavit, Detective Blache stated: (1)

4

The hearing was reset three more times before a hearing was
conducted and a ruling was made; Soileau was not present during
the April 19 or May 17 settings but was present at the July 19,
2010 hearing, at which time Soileau requested one last
continuance because he had forgotten his file.
7

Reed, as an employee of CTV, accepted an enrollment fee for
services but did not in fact perform any services; (2) Reed
accepted a check from a client without authorization and deposited
the check in her personal account also without authorization from
the company owner, Albert Wells; (3) Detective Blache learned from
Wells that the business had closed in June 2008; (4) Reed accepted
the check after the business had been closed.
But Wells also signed affidavits on April 2, 2009 and April
23, 2009, stating: (1) Reed was his supervisor; (2) Reed was
authorized to accept payments from clients; (3) Wells did not at
any time act to bring charges against Reed; and (4) CTV was open
through September 2008.
Reed alleges that Detective Blache pursued charges against her
even though he had information contradicting his affidavit.

When

Reed’s counsel attempted to have the warrants withdrawn because
they were untrue, Reed alleges, Detective Blache filed another
affidavit on April 20, 2009, forming the basis of an obstruction of
justice charge against Reed.

Reed alleges that Detective Blache

conspired with Officer Edwards to violate her constitutional rights
when Blache contacted Wells (after February 28, 2009)5 and tried to
get him to press charges against Reed.

5

On March 25, 2010, Reed alleges, that Wells submitted an
affidavit in which he stated that Blache contacted him to
pressure him into pressing charges against Reed.
8

Alleged Assault -- Deputy Chasity Sanford
On November 26, 2009 Reed was temporarily housed at the East
Baton

Rouge

Parish

Jail

scheduled in Baton Rouge.

because

she

had

a

court

appearance

That morning, Reed went to the morning

medicine call and asked for her breathing treatment, which was
previously ordered by her doctor. The nurse refused her treatment.
Deputy Chasity Sanford, who was present at the medicine call,
placed the palm of her hand in front of Reed’s face (indicating
that the conversation was over and that she would not listen to
Reed).

Reed turned to walk away and mumbled “you didn’t have to

put your hand in my face like that.”

Reed alleges in her complaint

that Deputy Sanford then grabbed Reed and slammed her to the
ground.
According

to

Reed,

Deputy

Sergeant

Minor,

Sanford’s

supervisor, had to stop Sanford from kicking Reed while Reed was on
the floor.

Reed was not examined by a nurse until much later that

evening; she was eventually taken to the hospital around midnight
and was diagnosed with bruised ribs.
The Lawsuit
On January 18, 2011 Reed sued Brian Blache, Michael Edwards,
Sid Gautreaux, James M. LeBlanc, Charles Mondrick, Chasity Sanford,
and Heath Soileau in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, alleging in a 45-page complaint various
civil rights and state law violations, including:

9

(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)

(6)

(7)
(8)

false arrest and false imprisonment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, as to Officer Edwards and Charles Mondrick,
interim chief of the Baton Rouge Police Department, in
his official capacity;
false arrest and false imprisonment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 as to Heath Soileau, James M. LeBlanc, Secretary
of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, individually
and acting in his official capacity;
false arrest and false imprisonment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 as to defendants Brian Blache and Sid Gautreaux,
East Baton Rouge Sheriff, in his official capacity;
excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth
Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as to Chasity
Sanford;
entity liability/official liability under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 as to Charles Mondrick, interim chief of the Baton
Rouge Police Department, in his official capacity; James
M. LeBlanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Corrections, individually and acting in his official
capacity; and Sid Gautreaux, East Baton Rouge Sheriff, in
his official capacity;
negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention, in
violation of La.C.C. art. 2315 as to Charles Mondrick, in
his official capacity; James M. LeBlanc, individually and
in his official capacity; and Sid Gautreaux, in his
official capacity;
negligence, in violation of La.C.C. art. 2315 as to Heath
Soileau; and
battery, in violation of La.C.C. art. 2315 as to Chasity
Sanford.

Reed sued for $600,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in
punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees.
The defendants now seek dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims;
they assert many grounds, including that Reed’s Section 1983 claims
have prescribed.6

6

On January 11, 2012 this Court ordered supplemental papers
addressing the statute of limitations issue, and also granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against
James L. LeBlanc in his official capacity; the plaintiff conceded
that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over these
claims on the ground of sovereign immunity.
10

I.
Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a federal cause of action,
Congress

did

limitations.

not

adopt

an

accompanying

federal

statute

of

Accordingly, it is well-settled that the federal

courts borrow from the forum state’s personal injury limitations
period.

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007).

As a result,

the Fifth Circuit has approved application of Louisiana’s one-year
personal injury prescriptive period, as provided by La.C.C. art.
3492, for Section 1983 actions.

See

Elzy v. Roberson, 868 F.2d

793, 794-95 (5th Cir. 1989); Gaspard v. United States, 713 F.2d
1097, 1102 n.11 (5th Cir. 1983).
Unlike the limitations period itself, the accrual date of a
Section 1983 claim is governed by federal law.
at 388.

Wallace, 549 U.S.

Generally, a Section 1983 action will accrue when a

plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the
basis of the complaint. Lavelle v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th
Cir. 1980). In particular, when false arrest or false imprisonment
claims are asserted, the limitations period will accrue when the
claimant “becomes held pursuant to [legal] process–-when, for
example [s]he is bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on
charges.”

See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 389-91 (holding that “the

statute of limitations upon a Section 1983 claim seeking damages
for false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the
arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the

11

time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process”, not
at the time that a conviction arising out of the arrest is
reversed).7
II.
A.
Reed’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims against
defendants Detective Blache, Sheriff Gautreaux, Officer Edwards,
Police Chief Mondrick, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections James LeBlanc, and Probation and
Parole Officer Heath Soileau fall squarely within the holding of
Wallace, and must be dismissed as time-barred.

Likewise, her

excessive force claim against Deputy Sanford is time-barred.

7

The Supreme Court has observed:

False arrest and false imprisonment overlap; the former
is a species of the latter.... We shall thus refer to
the two torts together as false imprisonment.... The
sort of unlawful detention remediable by the tort of
false imprisonment is detention without legal
process...and the allegations before us arise from
respondents’ detention of petitioner without legal
process.... They did not have a warrant for his
arrest.... Thus, to determine the beginning of the
limitations period in this case, we must determine when
petitioner’s false imprisonment came to an end....
Reflective of the fact that false imprisonment consists
of detention without legal process, a false
imprisonment ends once the victim becomes held pursuant
to such process–when, for example, he is bound over by
a magistrate or arraigned on charges.... If there is a
false arrest claim, damages for that claim cover the
time of detention up until the issuance of process or
arraignment, but not more.
Id. at 390.
12

Reed alleges the following facts relevant to the prescription
issues raised by the defendants:
•

•
•
•
•

•

•
•

•
•

•

When Reed did not appear on November 19, 2007 for the
revocation hearing related to her probation, an arrest warrant
was signed by the judge in the 23rd Judicial District Court,
and the matter was continued without date.
Reed was stopped by Officer Edwards on February 28, 2009 and
a warrant issued as a result.
Detective Blache executed an arrest warrant for her on March
18, 2009 “on theft charges related to her employment
with...CTV and Associates”.
Reed was arrested on July 21, 2009 during a warrant roundup
pursuant to the Traffic Warrant, the CTV Warrant, and the
Probation Warrant.
On July 23, 2009, Probation Officer Soileau files an
additional motion and order to revoke probation (as a result
of the Traffic Warrant and CTV Warrant, as well as a charge
for issuing worthless checks), and also requests a probation
hold with the East Baton Rouge Parish Jail.
Sometime between August 1, 2009 and August 15, 2009, Reed
posted a bond, with a surety, in the amount of $35,000 to
cover the charges related to the traffic stop and the alleged
theft to facilitate her release from East Baton Rouge Parish
Jail.
Reed was then transported to Ascension Parish Jail and held
there on the Probation Warrant.
On September 22, 2009 Reed’s attorney appears at the
revocation hearing set in the 23rd Judicial District Court and
requests a continuance; the revocation hearing is continued
until November 17, 2009, at which time the State secured a
continuance.8
On November 26, 2009 Deputy Sanford allegedly assaulted Reed
during medicine call.
On January 19, 2010 Reed was present with her attorney for the
revocation hearing; the State again moved for a continuance
because Soileau was not present; the court granted the
continuance but ordered that the probation hold be lifted and
that Reed be released.
On January 18, 2011 Reed filed this lawsuit.
Reed’s false arrest claims accrued at the time she became

8

Reed claims that she had fired the lawyer before he
requested the continuance on her behalf.
13

detained “pursuant to legal process”.

The defendants respond that

Reed became detained pursuant to legal process when she posted bond
on

the

theft

and

traffic

charges,

which

according

to

the

allegations of her complaint was -- at the latest -- August 15,
2009.

In light of the one-year prescriptive period, her false

arrest claims expired one year later on August 15, 2010.

Because

she did not file this lawsuit until January 18, 2011, her false
arrest claims against Detective Blache, Sheriff Gautreaux, Officer
Edwards,

Police

Chief

Mondrick,

Secretary

of

the

Louisiana

Department of Public Safety and Corrections James LeBlanc, and
Probation and Parole Officer Heath Soileau are dismissed as timebarred.9
B.
Reed’s excessive force claims against Deputy Sanford and
Sheriff Gautreaux meet the same fate.

9

The Court again borrows the

Defendants LeBlanc and Soileau contend, in the alternative,
that Reed’s claims against them prescribed, if not on August 15,
2010, then on September 22, 2010, which was one year after Reed’s
September 22, 2009 appearance at the revocation hearing about the
Probation Warrant. The Court agrees. Even if Reed could somehow
suggest that her false arrest claims against Soileau and LeBlanc
did not accrue until she appeared for a revocation hearing (the
appearance for a hearing being the requisite legal process) there
were several hearings (in which she was represented by counsel)
that would appear to satisfy Wallace’s mandate that the
limitations period will accrue when the false imprisonment ends;
when the claimant “becomes held pursuant to [legal] process.”
The first of several revocation hearings, although ultimately
continued, was held on September 22, 2009. Reed insists,
however, that the only hearing date that matters for accrual
purposes, even though it was also continued, was the one held on
January 19, 2010. She offers no support for her assertion.
14

same one-year prescriptive period from Louisiana.

Reed’s Section

1983 action based on an excessive force claim accrued when she knew
or had reason to know of the injury that is the basis of her
lawsuit.

See

Lavelle v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th Cir.

1980).

Reed knew or should have known of the basis of her

excessive force claim when she was allegedly assaulted by Deputy
Sanford, which Reed says occurred on November 26, 2009.

Because

Reed filed this lawsuit more than one year later on January 18,
2011, her excessive force claim is also time-barred.
C.
A

district

court

may

decline

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if the Court has
dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

28

Indeed, when a district court dismisses all

federal claims before trial, the general rule is to dismiss any
pendent state law claims.

See Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d

234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999)(citation omitted).

Because all of the

plaintiff’s charges forming the basis of her Section 1983 claims
have

prescribed,

the

Court

declines

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction over any state law claims that might remain.
IT IS ORDERED: that the defendants’ three motions to dismiss
--

(1)

defendants

Sid

Gautreaux,

Brian

Blache,

and

Chasity

Sanford’s motion to dismiss; (2) defendants James M. LeBlanc and
Heath Soileau’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint; and (3)

15

defendants Michael Edwards and Charles Mondrick’s Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss on the basis of prescription are GRANTED insofar
as they seek to dismiss Reed’s Section 1983 claims on the grounds
of prescription; accordingly, the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims
are dismissed with prejudice,10 and any state law claims are
dismissed without prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, February 9, 2012

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

The plaintiff purports to assert a claim for “entity
liability/official liability” against defendants Mondrick,
LeBlanc, and Gautreaux. However, because Reed cannot state an
underlying constitutional claim against any of the defendants, to
the extent that she seeks to assert any official capacity claim
against these defendants or any “entity”, such claims are
properly also dismissed. See Patin v. Richard, No. 10-650, 2011
WL 9118, at *7-8 (W.D. La. Jan. 3, 2011)(citations omitted).
16