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)

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