Crittindon et al v. Gusman et al

Filing 157

RULING denying 93 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 1/22/2020. (EDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JESSIE CRITTINDON, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
17-512-SDD-EWD

MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.

RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c)1 filed by Defendant, Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman (“Sheriff Gusman”).
Plaintiffs Jessie Crittindon, Leon Burse, Eddie Copelin, Phillip Dominick III, and Donald
Guidry (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an Opposition2 to the motion. For the reasons that
follow, Sheriff Gusman’s motion shall be DENIED.
Plaintiffs are former prisoners who allege that they were held in custody for months
beyond their legal term of imprisonment. In their Complaints,3 they bring four claims
against Sheriff Gusman: (1) violation of their federal due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation of their state due

1

Rec. Doc. No. 93.
Rec. Doc. No. 113.
33
Rec. Doc. No. 1; Rec. Doc. No. 4; No. 17-602, Rec. Doc. No. 1. This case began as two separate cases
-- 17-cv-512 (with Plaintiffs Crittindon and Burse) and 17-cv-602 (with Plaintiffs Copelin, Dominick III, and
Guidry) -- which were consolidated on October 18, 2017. (Rec. Doc. No. 23).
2

58875 
Page 1 of 5 

process rights under Article 1, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution; and (3) and (4),
state law claims for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sheriff Gusman previously filed Motions to Dismiss4 as to all Plaintiffs pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs opposed both Motions5 and the Court
set the matter for hearing on September 18, 2018.6 After oral argument, the Court denied
Sheriff Gusman’s Motions with respect to the state law claims and the official capacity
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As for the individual capacity claims against Sheriff
Gusman, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had successfully pleaded facts that, if true,
would overcome the defense of qualified immunity.7
Sheriff Gusman filed this new Motion to Dismiss8 on July 26, 2019. He
acknowledges that it is his second bite at the apple. “Although this Court originally denied
Sheriff’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to the official capacity and state law claims,” he
explains, “the Sheriff now urges the Court to consider that he was not the ‘final
policymaker’ during the majority of the time of the incident in question, and thus the
Plaintiff cannot sustain a Monell claim against him.”9 Specifically, Sheriff Gusman asserts
that although the sheriff is typically the policymaker in § 1983 cases, that general principle
does not apply here because Judge Africk in the Eastern District of Louisiana previously
appointed a “Compliance Director” who has “final authority to operate the Orleans Parish
Jail.”10

4

Rec. Doc. No. 50; No. 17-602, Rec. Doc. No. 21.
Rec. Doc. No. 58; Rec. Doc. No. 67.
6
Rec. Doc. No. 78.
7
Id.
8
Rec. Doc. No. 93.
9
Rec. Doc. No. 93-1, p. 4.
10
Rec. Doc. No. 93-1, p. 16.
5

58875 
Page 2 of 5 

Plaintiffs take issue with what they see as Sheriff Gusman’s attempt to re-litigate
matters already decided by this Court at the September 2018 hearing, stating: “Gusman’s
Second Motion to Dismiss . . . reiterates the same arguments – which have also been
denied – regarding the Plaintiffs’ showing of the practice, policy, or custom that gives rise
to the claims against Gusman in his official capacity.”11 The Court agrees.
A review of Sheriff Gusman’s previous Motions to Dismiss and the transcript from
the September 2018 hearing demonstrates that all of the arguments raised in the instant
motion were raised previously. For example, in the instant Motion, Sheriff Gusman
suggests that his argument that he was not the “final policymaker” is novel, stating that
he “now urges the Court to consider”12 it. However, Sheriff Gusman’s previous Motion to
Dismiss clearly raised the issue – though not as explicitly or thoroughly as he does herein.
Sheriff Gusman’s original motion sought dismissal of the official capacity claims against
him arguing, inter alia, that after the appointment of Gary Maynard, “it is not clear what
Sheriff Gusman allegedly could or should have done to provide for Plaintiffs’ release.”13
In other words, Sheriff Gusman argued that he lacked the authority to control policy and
procedure because of Gary Maynard’s appointment. Plaintiffs addressed the argument in
their opposition,14 and the Court heard oral argument on the issue at the hearing.
The Court engaged with Sheriff Gusman’s counsel for several minutes on the
sufficiency of the “policymaker” allegations.15 At the close of the hearing, the Court stated:
To have official capacity responsibility under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights
Act, there must be some policy, custom, or practice that has caused the
11

Rec. Doc. No. 113, p. 6.
Rec. Doc. No. 93-1, p. 4.
13
Rec. Doc. No. 50-1, p. 8-9.
14
Rec. Doc. No. 58, p. 8.
15
Rec. Doc. No. 81, pp. 18-22 (Transcript of Hearing).
12

58875 
Page 3 of 5 

constitutional violation. A statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision that
is promulgated by the municipality’s lawmaking officers or an official to
whom the lawmakers have delegated policymaking authority. Those are the
allegations in this case; that the officials, specifically LeBlanc, Gusman, and
the East Carroll Parish Sheriff Williams, have delegated some of those
decision-making responsibilities and those implementation of policies and
promulgations of policies. The Court finds there are sufficient allegations as
to the policymaking of each of the defendants.16
In the instant motion, Sheriff Gusman offers no explanation as to why he is entitled to
expand upon his argument now, when the Court’s oral ruling is already the law of the
case. Nor does he provide a legal reason for the Court to reconsider its oral ruling. In
short, although Sheriff Gusman denies that it is his intention “to rehash previously
addressed arguments,”17 his motion does just that, albeit in a more lengthy and wellsupported fashion. Likewise, with respect to Sheriff Gusman’s visitation of his arguments
on qualified immunity and Plaintiffs’ state law claims, the record is clear that these issues
were previously briefed by the parties and ruled on by the Court after oral argument.18
The Court already considered and denied Gusman’s arguments once, finding that the
allegations in the Complaint, accepted as true, were sufficient to state a claim against
Sheriff Gusman. Seeing the same arguments re-urged herein, the Court finds that his
Motion19 shall be DENIED.

16

Id. at p. 49.
Rec. Doc. No. 93-1, p. 4.
18
See Rec. Doc. No. 81, pp. 50-52.
19
Rec. Doc. No. 93.
17

58875 
Page 4 of 5 

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Sheriff Gusman’s Motion to Dismiss20 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on January 22, 2020.

S

CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

20

Rec. Doc. No. 93.

58875 
Page 5 of 5