Barras v. Department of Corrections, State of Louisiana et al

Filing 30

RULING: Defts 24 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED in part in that pltfs claims against defts Rader and Geter in their official capacity are DISMISSED. Further, pltfs claims under the 14th Amendment are DISMISSED. Defts Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in that the Complaint states an 8th Amendment claim under which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 9/26/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ADAM BARRAS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-155-JJB-DLD
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants Rader and Geter filed this Motion to Dismiss all federal claims
against them. (Doc. 24). Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Doc. 27). There is no need
for oral argument. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28
U.S.C. § 1343. For the reasons given below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint (doc. 1) arising from the
death of his late father, Edward T. Barras (“the late Barras”), an inmate at Dixon
Correctional Institute (“DCI”).

The late Barras’ death was the result of an

accident that occurred while he was doing electrical work on a generator at the
prison. Plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as state law claims. Previously, the
State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
was dismissed as a defendant. (Doc.17). The remaining defendants, the warden
of DCI and the supervisor under whom the late Barras was working and who are

sued in their official capacity and their personal capacity, now seek to have all
federal claims dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), on a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, the Court accepts all well-pleaded, non-conclusory facts in the
complaint as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, _ U.S. _, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

“[A]

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555.

A complaint that pleads facts merely consistent with a

defendant’s liability “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility.”
Id. at 557. When well-pleaded factual allegations populate the complaint, “a
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950.
Defendants assert first, and Plaintiff acknowledges, that Rader and Geter
may not be sued for money damages in their official capacity. Therefore, the
federal claims against Rader and Geter in their official capacity are DISMISSED.
Defendants also assert Plaintiff has pleaded no facts to support a
Fourteenth Amendment due process violation. (Doc. 24-1 at 13). Plaintiff does
not dispute this in his Opposition. The Court finds there are no facts to support a
Fourteenth Amendment claim and that this claim is DISMISSED.
2

And while Defendants are correct that there are not many facts pleaded at
all in the Complaint, the Court finds that they are sufficient to state a plausible
claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. The well-pleaded facts in paragraphs
5-7 of the complaint, treated as true for the purposes of this motion, make out an
Eighth Amendment violation. According to the Complaint, Rader and Geter
ordered the late Barras to perform electrical work on a generator. They did this
after he had specifically requested other work duties because he feared
performing electrical work without proper supervision and training. Further, Rader
and Geter were aware of the dangerous conditions when they made this order. If
proven, this would amount to deliberate indifference to the late Barras’ clearly
established Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and
bring personal liability for the defendants.

The fact that Plaintiff includes

nameless “other officials” to this allegation does not mean he has not included
particularized facts, as Defendants assert, it simply means he is limiting his suit
to the named Defendants’ actions. If the Defendants did not make the orders,
they will have an opportunity to show that. In the meantime, the Court finds the
facts pleaded, when presumed to be true, make out a plausible claim for an
Eighth Amendment claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 24) is GRANTED
in part in that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Rader and Geter in their
official capacity are DISMISSED. Further, Plaintiff’s claims under the Fourteenth
3

Amendment are DISMISSED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in that
the Complaint states an Eighth Amendment claim under which relief can be
granted.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 26, 2011.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4