Lewis v. Locicero et al

Filing 68

RULING AND ORDER: The 39 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Sheriff Ard, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The 40 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Deputy LoCicero, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The 41 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff, is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 9/7/2017. (LLH)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ANDREW B. LEWIS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NICHOLAS LOCICERO, ETAL. NO.: 15-00129-BAJ-RLB RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) filed by Livingsto n Parish Sheriff Jason Ard and a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) filed by Deputy Nicholas LoCicero. Both Sheriff Ard and Dep uty LoCicero ("Defendants") seek an order dismissing Andrew Lewis' ("Plaintiff') claims in t heir entirety. Also before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 41) filed by Plaintiff, seeking a finding that Deputy LoCicero is liable under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 beca use he arrested Plaintiff without probable cause. Each party has filed an opposition (Docs. 48 and 53), and replies where applicable (Docs . 57 and 58). For reasons explained fully herein, Sheriff Ard's Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 39) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Deputy LoCicero's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART (Doc. 40), and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 41) is DENIED. 1 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that on March 6, 2014, he stopped at a Walmart store in Denham Springs, Louisia na to purchase some supplies . (Doc. 35 at ,, 16). After stopping, Plaintiff fell asleep in the parking lot in his truck, and at a round 1:12AM, Deputy LoCicero of the Livingston Pa rish Sheriffs Office woke him up. Id. at,, 17. Plaintiff avers that Deputy LoCicero then searched his truck without reasonable cause a nd found three Concerta pills. Id. at ~~ 18, 20. Concerta is a prescription ~ 21. It is a controlled s ubstance under Louisiana law. La. R.S. § 40:964(A)(C)(4). Plaintiff dru g th at t reats attention deficit hyperactivity disorde r ("ADD"). I d. at alleges that he had a prescription, but that he could not locate it. (Doc. 35. at,, 20). As a result, Deputy LoCicero a rrested him for possession of a controlled substance. Id. at~ 23. The next day, Plaintiff alleges that he was released on bail a nd went to work at Greystone Golf, LLC at 6:00am. Id. at~ 26-28. He alleges that after his release, Sheriff Ard and Deputy LoCicero tried to convince Derek Lockhart, his supervisor at Greystone Golf, to fire him because he was a drug dealer. Id. at ,, 29. Plaintiff alleges t h at Mr. Lockhart a nd Sheriff Ard a re friends . Id. at su spended Plaintiff on March 11, 20 14. Id. at ,, 30. ~ 29(A). Mr. Lockha r t Plaintiff a lleges that Mr. Lockha rt a nd Greystone Golf also fired him because he took prescription medication for his AD D and treated him differently based on a disability. Id. at~ 37(A). Plaintiff filed t he instant action on March 6, 2015, against Deputy LoCicero, individually; Sheriff Ard, individua lly a nd officially; Derek Lockhart; a nd Greystone 2 Golf. (Doc. 35). Plaintiff brings t his action against Mr. Lockhart a nd Greystone Golf under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and La. R.S. 23:301. Id. at ~ 1. Plaintiff brings this action against Dep uty LoCicero and Sheriff Ard under 42 U .S.C. §§ 1983 a nd 1988 for violating his Fom'th, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 35 at ,, 1). On February 29, 2016, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs claims against Derek Lockhart and Greys tone Golf under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 26). On Dece mber 30, 2016, Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, (Docs. 39 a nd 40), a nd Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, (Doc. 41). On March 27, 2017 the Com·t heard or al a rgument. (Doc. 61). II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows th at there is no genuine dispute as to a ny material fact a nd that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "[W]hen a properly s upporte d motion for summary judgmen t is made, t he adverse pa rty must set forth specific facts showing that t here is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson u. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quotation marks a nd footnote omitted). In determining whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment, t he Com·t "view[s] facts in the light most favora ble to the non-mova nt a nd draw[s) all reasonable inferences in h er favor." Coleman u. Houston I ndep. Sch. Dist. , 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997). At this stage, the Court does not evaluate th e credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve factua l disputes. Int ,l Shortstop, Inc. u. 3 IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 39) filed by Sheriff Al·d is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 40} filed by Deputy LoCicero is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 41) filed by Plaintiff is DENIED. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this ?4: day of September, 2017. BRIAN A. JAC , CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 16

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?