Smith v. Mahler et al

Filing 4

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

-PJH Smith v. Mahler et al

Doc. 4

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 S T E P H E N SMITH V ER SU S J E F F MAHLER, ET AL C I V I L ACTION NO. 10-1000 J U D G E HAIK 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 the Marshals Office C ity of Lafayette and Jeff Mahler in their official and individual capacities. In his an sw er, defendant Jeff Mahler plead qualified immunity. The undersigned has therefore c o n d u c te d an evaluation of plaintiff's complaint to determine whether it meets the a p p lic a b le heightened pleading requirement. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, (5 th C ir. 1995); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996). After review, the undersigned concludes plaintiff has "supported [his] claims with s u f f ic ie n t precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality of d e f en d a n t's conduct at the time of the alleged acts." Schultea, 47 F.3d at 1434. Although th e court may later determine the facts in favor of defendants, the sole issue presented h e re is whether plaintiff has satisfied the heightened pleading requirement of Shultea, w h ic h the undersigned concludes he has. Thus, no order limiting discovery under S c h u lte a is appropriate.

Dockets.Justia.com

S ig n e d at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 24 th day of September, 2010.

2