Chaney v. Races and Aces et al

Filing 142

RULING denying 134 Partial Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 136 and 139 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 03/24/2014. (CGP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TONY CHANEY
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-399-JJB-RLB
RACES AND ACES, ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Plaintiff Tony Chaney’s
Partial Motion [doc. 134] for Summary Judgment; (2) Defendants Mike Caze, Kenneth Albarez,
and Patty Webb’s Motion [doc. 136] for Summary Judgment; and (3) Defendant Richard J.
Ward, Jr.’s Motion [doc. 139] for Summary Judgment. The defendants opposed the plaintiff’s
motion, whereas the defendants’ motions are unopposed. (See docs. 137 & 138). Jurisdiction is
based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Oral argument is not necessary. For the reasons provided herein, the
Court: (1) DENIES Plaintiff Tony Chaney’s Partial Motion [doc. 134] for Summary Judgment;
(2) GRANTS Defendants Mike Caze, Kenneth Albarez, and Patty Webb’s Motion [doc. 136] for
Summary Judgment; and (3) GRANTS Defendant Richard J. Ward, Jr.’s Motion [doc. 139] for
Summary Judgment.
1. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. Rule Civ. P.
56(a). The movant must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial.
When the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the movant need only demonstrate
that the record lacks sufficient evidentiary support for the non-moving party’s case. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). The moving party can do this by showing that the
evidence is insufficient to prove the existence of one or more essential elements of the non1

moving party’s case. Id. A party must support its summary judgment position by “citing to
particular parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the materials cited do not establish
the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed. Rule Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
Although the court considers evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party,
the non-moving party must show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986). Conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions
will not satisfy the non-moving party’s burden. Grimes v. Tex. Dep’t of Mental Health, 102 F.3d
137, 139–40 (5th Cir. 1996). Similarly, “[u]nsworn pleadings, memoranda or the like are not . . .
competent summary judgment evidence.” Larry v. White, 929 F.2d 206, 211 n.12 (5th Cir. 1991).
“In a motion for summary judgment, a federal district court is not called upon to make
credibility assessments of conflicting evidence.” Melancon v. Ascension Parish, 823 F. Supp.
401, 404 n.19 (M.D. La. 1993). “To the contrary, all evidence is considered in the light most
favorable to the non-movant.” Id. “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and
the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.”
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000) (quoting Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255).
2. Plaintiff Tony Chaney’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 134)
After considering the plaintiff’s motion and reply, the Court must deny the motion. The
plaintiff fails to present a modicum of evidence to support his claims. Instead, the plaintiff relies
on conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions. Therefore, the plaintiff fails to establish
that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to his claims. Accordingly, based on the sheer
lack of evidence presented to this Court to justify the plaintiff’s claims, the Court must deny the
motion for summary judgment.

2

3. Defendants Mike Caze, Kenneth Albarez, and Patty Webb’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 136)
After reviewing the relevant documents and submitted evidence, and based on the
plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion or submit evidence that raises a genuine issue of material
fact, the Court must grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons
provided in the motion, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to all
claims against Defendants Mike Caze, Kenneth Albarez, and Patty Webb. Accordingly,
judgment must be granted as a matter of law in favor of these defendants.
4. Defendant Richard J. Ward, Jr.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 139)
Similarly, for the reasons provided in the unopposed motion for summary judgment, this
Court finds there is no genuine issue of material fact, and Defendant Richard J. Ward, Jr. is
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
5. Failure to Make Proper Service on Defendant Peter Cook
After reviewing the record, the Court notes that the only remaining individual listed as a
defendant is Mr. Peter Cook. Plaintiff previously attempted to make service on Mr. Cook
through serving Clifton J. Redlich as an agent for service of process. (Doc. 40, p. 1).
Nonetheless, it does not appear that Mr. Redlich was even an agent for service as to Mr. Cook.
Furthermore, service apparently was not even made on Mr. Redlich; rather, Sarah Ann Redlich
was served with process. (Doc. 42, p. 1). At that time, both the defendants and the Court notified
the plaintiff that service had not been properly made on Mr. Cook. (See docs. 54 & 55).
Subsequently, the plaintiff did not attempt to make proper service on Mr. Cook. Accordingly, as
it has been almost three years since the inception of this lawsuit, and pursuant to Rule 4(m) of

3

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court sua sponte dismisses Mr. Peter Cook from this
lawsuit for failure to properly make timely service.
6. Failure to Attempt Service on “Unknown Correctional Officer”
After almost three years, the plaintiff has never even attempted to make service on the
“unknown correctional officer.” Accordingly, the “unknown correctional officer” has never been
made a party to this action. Accordingly, the Court dismisses all claims against the “unknown
correctional officer.”
7. Warning of Future Sanctions as to Plaintiff Tony Chaney
The Court notes that this entire lawsuit appears frivolous and wholly unsubstantiated.
This is not the first time the plaintiff filed an apparently frivolous lawsuit with this Court. See
Chaney v. Louisiana Work Force Commission, et al., 13-cv-241-JJB-RLB.
Furthermore, in his reply, the plaintiff seeks to disqualify the entire panel of jurors of this
Court. (Doc. 141-1, p. 9). Specifically, the plaintiff contends that “[t]his court has allowed
various law enforcement agencies to employ unnecessary surveillance in order to allow the
defendants [to] acquire an advantage they could not possibly achieve.” Id. According to the
plaintiff, these include “[t]he use of airplanes, helicopter, drones and following plaintiff in cars
and on the bus and using entrapment methods . . . .” Id. However, the plaintiff noticeably fails to
support this claim with any evidence or a modicum of proof, other than his absolutely baseless
and inflammatory allegations. The Court refuses to dignify these claims with a response, as they
are wholly unfounded. Furthermore, the Court notes that this is not the first time the plaintiff has
made these same allegations before this Court, and the Court denied the plaintiff’s request on
that previous occasion. (See docs. 129 & 133).

4

“In accordance with the Fifth Circuit’s instructions, sanctions are necessary and
warranted to control this court’s docket and maintain the orderly administration of justice.”
Thibeaux v. Cain, 2012 WL 832432, at *3 (M.D. La. Feb. 29, 2012) (citing Dilworth v. Box, 53
F.3d 1281 (5th Cir.1995); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1993); Moody v. Miller,
864 F.2d 1178, 1179 n.2 (5th Cir. 1991)). “Sanctions which may be imposed include monetary
sanctions, assessment of court costs, suspension of the plaintiff’s right to proceed in forma
pauperis until previous litigation sanctions and costs are paid, a requirement that the plaintiff
obtain judicial pre-approval for all future pro se filings, or other appropriate sanctions.” Id.
(citing Dilworth, 53 F.3d 1281; Mendoza, 989 F.2d 191; Moody, 864 F.2d at 1179 n.2; Lay v.
Anderson, 837 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1988); Mayfield v. Collins, 918 F.2d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 1991)).
The Court is hereby formally warning Plaintiff Tony Chaney that upon the filing of additional
frivolous or unsubstantiated lawsuits or pleadings, the Court is prepared to implement
appropriate sanctions to quell this practice, up to and including prohibiting Plaintiff Tony
Chaney from filing any future pro se filings without prior judicial approval.
Conclusion
Therefore, for the reasons provided, the Court: (1) DENIES Plaintiff Tony Chaney’s
Partial Motion [doc. 134] for Summary Judgment; (2) GRANTS Defendants Mike Caze,
Kenneth Albarez, and Patty Webb’s Motion [doc. 136] for Summary Judgment; and (3)
GRANTS Defendant Richard J. Ward, Jr.’s Motion [doc. 139] for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, all claims against Defendants Peter Cook, Mike Caze, Kenneth Albarez, Patty
Webb, and Richard J. Ward, Jr. are hereby DISMISSED.
Additionally, the Court DISMISSES all claims against Defendant Peter Cook—pursuant
to Rule 4(m)—for failure to properly make timely service.

5

Finally, all claims against “unknown correctional officer” are DISMISSED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 24, 2014.





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

6