LaVergne v. Cain et al

Filing 9

RULING: The 8 Amendment to Add Plaintiff signed by Tiffany Gilcrease, treated as a motion for leave to intervene, is granted. The 6 Motion for Reconsideration filed by plaintiff Brandon S. Lavergne is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 3/9/2015. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRANDON S. LAVERGNE (#424227)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

N. BURL CAIN, ET AL

NUMBER 15-34-BAJ-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO INTERVENE
and
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the court is the Amendment to Add Plaintiff filed by
Tiffany Gilcrease on March 6, 2015.

Record document number 8.

Also before the court is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
plaintiff Brandon S. Lavergne.

Record document number 6.

The background for this motion was previously stated in the
Ruling on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint issued February 24,
20151 and will not be repeated in this ruling.

After that ruling

was issue the clerk of court received and filed a version of the
plaintiff’s Amendment to Add Plaintiff which was signed by Tiffany
Gilcrease.2

On page 7 Gilcrease stated under penalty of perjury

that the facts stated in the Amendment to Add Plaintiff are true to
the best of her knowledge and understanding, and “I am asking this
court to add me as a plaintiff to this suit.”

Based on her

request, this filling will be treated as a motion by her for leave

1

Record document number 5.

2

Record document number 8.

to intervene as a plaintiff.
As explained in the previous ruling, plaintiff Brandon S.
Lavergne may not represent another party.

Coon v. Ledbetter, 780

F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1986)(the right to bring an action under the
civil rights act is personal in nature and may not be asserted by
third parties). Gilcrease’s proposed claims, based on deprivations
of her First Amendment associational rights, arise out of the same
transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences
as do the plaintiff Lavergne’s claims, and her claims present
questions of fact and law in common with his claims.
20(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Rule

Therefore, she may join her claims in the

same case.
This does not mean plaintiff Lavergne can litigate Gilcrease’s
claims himself.3 Gilcrease is responsible for serving Maj. Michael
Vaughn, the defendant named in the Amendment to Add Plaintiff,
with a summons and her signed Amendment to Add Plaintiff in the
manner required, and within the time allowed, by Rule 4(m),
Fed.R.Civ.P.
dismissed.

Failure to do so may result in her claims being

She must sign and file her own pleadings and motions,

as well as her own responses to motions, discovery requests and
court orders. She is responsible for complying with all applicable
provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s
Local Rules and court orders applicable to her.

3

Her failure to do

Appearing to litigate Gilcrease’s claims on her behalf may
be construed as practicing law without a license, which is a crime.
LSA-R.S. 37:212.A, 213.C.

so

may

result

in

the

pleading,

motion

or

other

paper

being

stricken, the court taking no action on it, or other adverse
consequences.
Plaintiff Lavergne moved for reconsideration of the Ruling on
Motion

for

Leave

to

Amend

Complaint

on

the

ground

that

the

Amendment to Add Plaintiff signed by Gilcrease was supposed to have
been mailed to the court.

The record shows that it was received

after the ruling was issued. Consequently, ruling was correct when
issued.
Gilcrease

However, since the Amendment to Add Plaintiff signed by
is

being

granted,

the

plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration is now moot.
Accordingly, the Amendment to Add Plaintiff signed by Tiffany
Gilcrease, record document number 8, treated as a motion for leave
to intervene, is granted.

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by

plaintiff Brandon S. Lavergne is denied as moot.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 9, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE