Randolph v. Amos et al

Filing 92

MEMORANDUM RULING re 79 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim filed by Joe Green. Signed by Judge James D Cain, Jr on 11/15/2021. (crt,Benoit, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

HARRY RANDOLPH

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00355

VERSUS

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

LARRY AMOS ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [doc. 79] filed
by defendant Joe Green, who has been named in his official capacity as district attorney
for the 33rd Judicial District, Allen Parish, Louisiana. Plaintiff Harry Randolph opposes
the motion. Doc. 91.
I.
BACKGROUND
This suit arises from Randolph’s arrest following a traffic stop conducted by officers
of the Oakdale Police Department. Randolph alleges as follows: On the evening of March
7, 2016, he was a rear seat passenger in a vehicle owned by someone else that was stopped
due to lack of visible tail lights in Oakdale, Louisiana, by Officer Larry Amos. Doc. 55, p.
3. Amos questioned the driver about the traffic violation, had the occupants exit the vehicle,
and ran a warrant check on Randolph, which came back clean. Id. at 4. Nevertheless,
Officers Brandon Johnson and Ben Perkins arrived a short time later and began questioning
each vehicle occupant individually about other crimes, though Randolph had not been read
his Miranda rights or told the reason for the stop. Id. They also took Randolph to the rear
1

of the vehicle and, without provocation, slammed him into it. Id. Randolph alleges that he
only held onto the vehicle to keep from falling to the ground and did not resist the officers,
but that they proceeded to tackle him, spray him with pepper spray, and shock him multiple
times with a taser gun. Id. at 5. After he was handcuffed, Randolph asserted, Officer
Johnson lifted him by the hair and punched him multiple times in the face. Id. Suffering
from his injuries, including two broken ribs, Randolph was taken to the jail and left on the
floor of his cell. Id. No mugshot was taken and he did not receive medical attention until
he was released five days later, with only a possession of marijuana charge. Id. at 6, 11.
Randolph further alleges that the officers falsified the police report by claiming that
they had seen a bag of marijuana in his mouth, which he purportedly destroyed by flushing
down the toilet in his cell, and that he had resisted arrest against three officers by wrestling
them all into a ditch. Id. at 7. Randolph was subsequently charged with resisting arrest,
possession of cocaine, and destruction of evidence as well. Id. at 9.
On March 6, 2017, while his criminal case was still pending, Randolph filed a civil
rights suit in this court under federal and state law against the City of Oakdale, Officers
Amos, Johnson, and Perkins, Oakdale Police Chief William Henry Bishop in his official
capacity, Allen Parish Sheriff Doug Hebert in his official capacity, Oakdale Mayor Gene
Paul, and the Allen Parish District Attorney in his official capacity. Doc. 1. Pursuant to an
unopposed motion by the City of Oakdale, the court stayed proceedings pending a
resolution of the criminal case. Doc. 11. The court reopened this matter on May 20, 2021,

2

after appeal deadlines had expired on Randolph’s conviction for resisting arrest. Doc. 39.
Randolph then filed an amended complaint.1
Randolph alleges, in relevant part, that the Allen Parish District Attorney violated
his civil rights by maintaining the charges against him in bad faith. Doc. 55, ¶ 58. Joe
Green, current district attorney, now moves to dismiss these claims. He argues that
Randolph’s guilty plea to resisting arrest bars his claims under the Heck doctrine, and in
the alternative that the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that Randolph
otherwise fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Doc. 79.
II.
LAW & APPLICATION
A. Legal Standards
Rule 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal of a claim when a plaintiff “fail[s] to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” When reviewing such a motion, the court should focus
on the complaint and its attachments. Wilson v. Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir.
2012). The court can also consider documents referenced in and central to a party’s claims,
as well as matters of which it may take judicial notice. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2000); Hall v. Hodgkins, 305 Fed. App’x 224, 227
(5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).
Such motions are reviewed with the court “accepting all well-pleaded facts as true
and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Bustos v. Martini Club,

1

The court then dismissed claims against several defendants on unopposed motions to dismiss brought under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

3

Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010). However, “the plaintiff must plead enough facts
‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,
495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). Accordingly, the court’s task is not to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success
but instead to determine whether the claim is both legally cognizable and plausible. Lone
Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010).
B. Application
In a section 1983 claim seeking damages “for allegedly unconstitutional conviction
or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid,” a plaintiff must prove “the conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).
Randolph complains of Green’s pursuit of both the resisting arrest charge to which
he pleaded guilty and the drug charges that were dismissed at his plea hearing. See doc. 79,
att. 2. A disposition of nolle prosequi can represent a favorable termination under Heck.
Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 803 (10th Cir. 2008). A “bare nolle prosse” is
insufficient, however, and the Heck bar is only lifted when circumstances indicate that the
failure to proceed was based on a lack of reasonable grounds for the prosecution. Id.
(internal quotations omitted). Here the drug charges were dismissed at the state’s motion

4

in connection with Green’s guilty plea, indicating compromise rather than any such
disposition.2
Randolph’s claims against Green call into question the validity of his guilty plea,
which “is a conviction under Louisiana law.” Connors v. Graves, 538 F.3d 373, 377–78
(5th Cir. 2008) (citing State v. Thornton, 521 So.2d 598, 600 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988)).
This conviction has not been set aside in any manner described by Heck. Accordingly, any
such claim is premature and must be dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted again
before Heck’s conditions are met. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir.
1996) (describing preferred manner of dismissal for Heck bar).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss [doc. 79] will be granted and
the claims against Green will be dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted again
before Heck’s conditions are met.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 15th day of November, 2021.

__________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

The factual basis given at the plea hearing also provides the basis for the drug charges, with the prosecutor stating
that officers saw Randolph with a large object in his mouth when he emerged from the vehicle, which had a strong
odor of marijuana, that the EMT who later tended to him also observed what appeared to be marijuana stems in his
mouth, and that Randolph presented for treatment at the hospital shortly thereafter where he admitted to being a social
user of marijuana and cocaine. Doc. 79, att. 2.

5