Lafleur v. Leglue et al

Filing 152

RULING AND ORDER: The 101 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Atlantic is GRANTED. The 102 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sheriff Ard and Warden Rushing is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1 983 claims against Sheriff Ard and Warden Rushing are dismissed. Plaintiff's 109 Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Postpone Hearing on Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's 123 Motion for Oral Argument on Defendant Ard and Sheriff Rushing's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and that a Status Conference set for 9/25/2018 at 02:00 PM in chambers before Judge Brian A. Jackson to discuss dates for a hearing. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 9/13/2018. (KAH)

she was incarcerated because she was told that she could not press charges while
incarcerated. Sheriff Ard argues that the distinction between a charge and a
complaint is obvious; however, the Court disagrees that this is obvious to a person
untrained in the law. Additionally, Plaintiffs contention that she was repeatedly told
her complaints against Leglue were being "taken care of' has not been contradicted
by Defendants. Under the unique circumstances of this case, where Plaintiff was
repeatedly told her verbal complaints were being addressed, she could have been so
misled about the necessity of filing a formal complaint as to render the administrative
remedy unavailable. At this stage, summary judgment for Plaintiffs vicarious
liability claims against Sheriff Ard is DENIED.
Because the Court has found that a genuine dispute of material fact exists
regarding exhaustion, the Court "should ...resolve disputes concerning exhaustion
prior to allowing the case to proceed to the merits." Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260,
273 (5th Cir. 2010). In order to resolve the disputed facts concerning exhaustion, the
Court may "hold0 an evidentiary hearing if necessary. Then, if the [Court] determines
that the plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies or that his or her failure to
exhaust should be excused, the case may proceed to the merits. Id.
IV.

Conclusion

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 101)
filed by Atlantic is GRANTED.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed
by Sheriff Ard and Warden Rushing (Doc. 102) is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against
Sheriff Ard and Warden Rushing are dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss or
Alternatively Postpone Hearing on Summary Judgment (Doc. 109) is DENIED AS

MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Oral Argument on
Defendant Ard and Sheriff Rushing's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 123) is

GRANTED IN PART and that a status conference is set for Tuesday, September 25,
2018 at 2:00 PM to discuss dates for a hearing.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this

/3 �ay of September, 2018.

JUDGE BRI�N
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

11