Savoy v. Stroughter et al
Filing
91
RULING AND ORDER granting 39 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's 1983 claims, and the federal claims by Plaintiff against Defendant are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, Plaintiff's remaining state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to refiling in state court. A separate judgment shall issue. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 3/25/2021. (EDC)
Case 3:18-cv-00463-BAJ-SDJ
Document 91
03/25/21 Page 1 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH SAVOY CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
DOUGLAS STROUGHTER, ETAL. NO. 18-00463-BAJ-EWD
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39).
The Motion is opposed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 46). Defendants filed a Reply. (Doc. 61). A
surreply was filed. (Doc. 89). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion is
GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2018, Joseph Savoy1, at the time an inmate confined to Dixon
Correctional Institute ("DCI ), filed this action against Defendants alleging that
Defendants used excessive force against him, in violation of his Eighth Amendment
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the United States
Constitution. (Doc. 1, p. 7-8). Savoy additionally alleged that the excessive force used
was in retaliation against him for filing an Administrative Remedies Procedure
( ARP ) at a previous institution. {Id. at p. 7). Savoy alleged, in the alternative,
negligence under Louisiana state law. LA. ClV. CODE art. 2315.
The parties agree that this action arises from an incident which occurred on
1 Savoy has since passed away from unrelated causes. See (Doc. 34-1).
1
Case 3:18-cv-00463-BAJ-SDJ
Document 91
03/25/21 Page 2 of 17
July 31, 2017 in the hallway of Compound- 2 at DCI. The parties acknowledge that
force was used against Savoy following a verbal altercation. The facts surrounding
the altercation, however, are all in dispute. Savoy contends that he was intentionally
verbally and physically harassed by Defendants, allegedly in retaliation for his
participation in a prior lawsuit. See (Doc. 46, p. 13-4). Defendants, on the other hand,
claim that the force used was a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline"
following Savoys allegedly raucous and unruly behavior towards them. (Doc. 39-1,
p. 18).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law. FED. R. ClV. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing materials in the record,
including "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, [and] interrogatory answers" or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the presence of a genuine dispute. See FED. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(l).
'([W]lien a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the
adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quotation marks and
footnote omitted). This burden is not satisfied with some metaphysical doubt as to
the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by
2
Case 3:18-cv-00463-BAJ-SDJ
Document 91
03/25/21 Page 3 of 17
only a scintilla of evidence." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.
1994) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In determining whether the movant
is entitled to summary judgment, the Court (
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?