Robinson et al v. City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge et al

Filing 122

AMENDMENT TO RULING AND ORDER re: 115 Order on Motion for Summary. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 10/28/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GEORGE W. ROBINSON, JR., ET
AL.

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 13-375-JWD-RLB

CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND
THE PARISH OF EAST BATON
ROUGE, ET AL.
AMENDMENT TO RULING AND ORDER
This matter is raised sua sponte concerning the Court’s October 22, 2016, Ruling and
Order (Doc. 115) on the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 62). The Court finds
that an amendment should be made to that ruling. This amendment does not change the outcome
of any issues addressed in the earlier ruling.
In Section IV.E.2 of the earlier ruling, the Court omitted any discussion about deliberate
indifference. The Fifth Circuit has explained:
The third prong [of Monell analysis] requires a plaintiff to prove “moving force”
causation. To succeed, “a plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken
with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a direct causal link
between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.” Bd. of the
County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S. Ct. 1382, 137 L. Ed. 2d 626
(1997). That is, “the plaintiff must demonstrate that a municipal decision reflects
deliberate indifference to the risk that a violation of a particular constitutional or
statutory right will follow the decision.” Id. at 411, 117 S. Ct. 1382. Deliberate
indifference is a high standard—“a showing of simple or even heightened
negligence will not suffice.” [Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 579
(5th Cir. 2001)] (quoting Brown, 520 U.S. at 407, 117 S. Ct. 1382).
Valle v. City of Houston, 613 F.3d 536, 542 (5th Cir. 2010). Further:
“Deliberate indifference” is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a
municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action. For
an official to act with deliberate indifference, the official must both be aware of

USCA

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
Estate of Davis ex rel. McCully v. City of N. Richland Hills, 406 F.3d 375, 381 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citations, quotations, and alterations omitted).
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact with
respect to deliberate indifference. Viewing the evidence in the record, a reasonable juror could
conclude that the members of the Planning Commission who voted against the Plaintiffs’
preliminary plat were aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that there was a
substantial risk of serious financial harm to the Plaintiffs and that they drew that inference.
Indeed, the financial harm that would be caused by rejecting such a plat would be obvious to any
Planning Commission member. Accordingly, and for the reasons provided in the Court’s earlier
ruling, the Court rejects the Defendants’ argument and finds that the Plaintiffs’ Monell claim
stands.
In all other respects, the Court’s earlier Ruling and Order is adopted and affirmed.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 28, 2016.

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