Cripps et al v. State of Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry

Filing 82

RULING granting 75 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on State Law Claims. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 8/7/2014. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL CRIPPS AND
JOHN DAVID CRIPPS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 12-452-JJB-SCR
STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND
FORESTRY, ET AL.
consolidated with
WILLIE CRIPPS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-51-JJB-SCR
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the defendants State of Louisiana through the
Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Structural Pest Control Commission, and David Fields’
Motion (rec. doc. 75) for Summary Judgment on State Law Claims. The plaintiff Willie Cripps
opposes the motion. (Rec. doc. 80). Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Oral argument is
not necessary.
This Court previously issued a ruling granting a separate motion for summary judgment
filed by these defendants. (Rec. doc. 68). Through that ruling, the Court granted summary
judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s federal First Amendment and Substantive Due
Process claims. After omitting it from the original motion, the defendants filed the pending
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the remaining Louisiana state law claims
asserted by the plaintiff Willie Cripps—claims under Louisiana Constitution, Article I, § 2 and
Article I, § 7.
1

Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 7 provides: “No law shall curtail or restrain the
freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on
any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.” As summary judgment has been
granted for the defendants as to the plaintiff’s federal First Amendment claims, summary
judgment is also proper on the plaintiff’s Article I, Section 7 claims. See Davis v. Allen Parish
Service Dist., 210 F. App’x. 404, 413 (5th Cir. 2006); Delcarpio v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd.,
865 F. Supp. 350, 362-63 (E. D. La. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995).
Additionally, Article I, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution provides that “[n]o person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.” Louisiana courts
have found the due process protections in the Louisiana Constitution to be coextensive with the
protections in the United States Constitution. Plaquemines Parish Government v. River/Road
Const., Inc., 828 So. 2d 16, 24–25 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002); State v. Smith, 614 So. 2d 778, 780
(La. App. 2 Cir. 1993). Accordingly, as this Court previously granted the defendants’ summary
judgment on Willie Cripps’ Section 1983 substantive due process claims, the Court also grants
the defendants summary judgment on Willie Cripps’ state substantive due process claims.
The Court also wants to specifically address the plaintiff’s contention that this Court did
not exercise the proper review in rendering its summary judgment ruling. The plaintiff believes
that this Court did not properly view the state court’s ruling in the light most favorable to him,
primarily because this Court did not agree with the plaintiff’s interpretation of that ruling. See
rec. doc. 80, p. 4. While the Court looked at all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—the plaintiff Willie Cripps in this instance—the Court is not thereby bound by the
plaintiff’s interpretation of such a ruling simply based on this fact. Additionally, the force and

2

effect of a ruling is a question of law for this Court to determine based on its review, a
determination this Court made in its prior rulings.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS the defendants’ Motion (rec. doc. 75) for Summary
Judgment on State Law Claims.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 7, 2014.





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

3