Ardoin v. City of Eunice et al

Filing 22

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 9/24/2010. (crt,Kennedy, T)

Ardoin v. City of Eunice et al

D o c . 22

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 N A T H A N I E L ARDOIN VERSUS C IT Y OF EUNICE, ET AL C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-2180 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, plaintiff has sued defendants City of Eunice, Daniel C ru m , and James Gary Fontenot in their official and individual capacities. In their a n sw e rs , defendants plead qualified immunity. The undersigned has therefore conducted a n evaluation of plaintiffs complaint to determine whether it meets the applicable h e ig h te n e d pleading requirement. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, (5 th Cir. 1995); B a k e r v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff also filed a Plaintiff's Rule 7 (A ) Response to Qualified Immunity Defense. (Rec. Doc. 19). 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

Dockets.Justia.com

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 24 th day of September, 2010.

2