Cormier et al vs. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government et al

Filing 26

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 3/12/10. (crt,Smith, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA L A F A Y E T T E -O P E L O U S A S DIVISION J O S E P H BOWMAN CORMIER, M A R Y ANN HENRY CORMIER VERSUS L A F A Y E T T E CITY-PARISH C O N S O L ID A T E D GOVERNMENT, ET AL C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-703

J U D G E DOHERTY M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HANNA

R U L E 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW In this §1983 civil rights suit, plaintiffs have sued defendants Lafayette CityP a rish Consolidated Government, Lafayette City Police Department and/or Lafayette City P r o s e c u to r's Office, Earl "Nickey" Picard, Timothy Picard, Gary J. Haynes, Shane M. M o u to n , Lt. Nolvey Stelly, Corporal Heather Martin, and Officer Chase Guidry in their o f f ic ia l and individual capacities. In their answers, defendants plead qualified immunity. The undersigned has therefore conducted an evaluation of plaintiffs complaint to d e te rm in e whether it meets the applicable heightened pleading requirement. See Schultea v . Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, (5 th Cir. 1995); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996). A f te r review, the undersigned concludes plaintiffs have "supported [their] claims w ith sufficient precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality o f defendants' conduct at the time of the alleged acts." Schultea, 47 F.3d at 1434. Although the court may later determine the facts in favor of defendants, the sole issue p re se n te d here is whether plaintiffs have satisfied the heightened pleading requirement of

2

S h u ltea , which the undersigned concludes they have. Thus, no order limiting discovery u n d e r Schultea is appropriate. Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 12 th day of March, 2010.