Roy v. Monroe

Filing 34

JUDGMENT granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. To the extent that Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim that Monroe City Ordinance § 12:153 is unconstitutional on its face and his munici pal claim against the City ofMonroe, the motion is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is otherwise DENIED. However, the Court has given notice of its intent to dismiss Plaintiffs claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution against Defendants based on its sua sponte analysis. If the parties wish to respond to the Courts stated intent, they must do so no later than 10/30/17. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 10/19/2017. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

CLARENCE DEAN ROY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1018

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CITY OF MONROE AND JAMES BOOTH

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

JUDGMENT
For the reasons set forth in this Court’s Ruling,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 23] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that
Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff Clarence Dean Roy’s claim that Monroe City
Ordinance § 12:153 is unconstitutional on its face and his municipal claim against the City of
Monroe, the motion is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The
motion is otherwise DENIED. However, the Court has given notice of its intent to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution against Defendants based on its sua
sponte analysis. If the parties wish to respond to the Court’s stated intent, they must do so no later
than October 30, 2017.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 19th day of October, 2017.