Lewis v. State of Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections et al

Filing 34

RULING and ORDER: Defendants' 28 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) is granted in part and denied in part, as stated. Plaintiff will be given 28 days within which to amend his Complaint. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 1/11/2016. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ADRIAN T. LEWIS
CIVIL ACTION
V.
NO. 12-521-JWD-EWD
CAPT. (FNU) RUSS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET
AL.,
RULING AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
FRCP Rule 12(b) (6), and 12 (b)(1). (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. 30.) No
reply was filed. Oral argument was held on January 8, 2016. Considering the law, facts in the
record, and arguments of the parties, and for oral reasons assigned, Defendant’s motion is
granted in part and denied in part.
With respect to the claims against Capt. Russ individually, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment violation. See Ashley v. Perry, No. 1300354, 2015 WL 9008501 (M.D. La. Dec. 15, 2015).1 Additionally, the Court will exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims.
With respect to the claims against Capt. Russ and Warden Cain in their official
capacities, the motion is GRANTED. These claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
See Anderson v. Phelps, 655 F. Supp. 560, 564 (M.D. La. 1985); Griffith v. Louisiana, 808 F.

1
Defendants raised for the first time at oral argument the fact that Plaintiff failed to allege physical injury and is thus
not entitled to compensatory damages. Since this argument was raised for the first time at oral argument, the Court
declines to consider it. However, Defendants are correct that Plaintiff must ultimately prove physical injury in order
to recover compensatory damages. See Ashley, 2015 WL 9008501, at *6. If he fails to do so yet still proves a
constitutional violation, he is still entitled to recover nominal and punitive damages. Id.

Supp. 2d 926, 932-33 (E.D. La. 2011). Accordingly, these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
With respect to the claims against the State, the motion is GRANTED. Again, the
Eleventh Amendment bars the Plaintiff’s claims. See Anderson, supra; Griffith, supra. These
claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
With respect to the claims against Warden Cain in his individual capacity, the motion is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims fail
because he has failed to show that Warden Cain acted with deliberate indifference. See Porter v.
Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2011). Specifically, Plaintiff fails to allege that Warden
Cain was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm existed and that he actually drew the inference. Plaintiff’s allegations of Warden
Cain’s knowledge are conclusory and speculative. See Stroman v. Ard, No 14-649, 2015 WL
6680874, at *8 (M.D. La. Nov. 2, 2015) (discussing how the Fifth Circuit requires that Plaintiff’s
asserting claims against officials claiming qualified immunity “must at least chart a factual path
to the defeat of the defendant’s immunity, free of conclusion.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim against Warden Cain is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. However,
Plaintiff will be given twenty-eight (28) days within which to amend his Complaint to assert an
Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Cain, if he can. If he fails to do so, this claim will be
dismissed with prejudice.
With respect to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law claims against Warden Cain,
Defendants’ motion is DENIED. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these
claims.

2

In all other respects, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b) (6),
and 12 (b)(1) (Doc. 28) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 11, 2016.

S

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3