Mayeux v. City of Opelousas
RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW: The undersigned concludes that there is no need for an order banning or limiting discovery with regard to the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, and the case should proceed in accordance with the existing 5 Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 3/01/2011. (crt,Putch, A)
Mayeux v. City of Opelousas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION LINDA MAYEUX VERSUS CITY OF OPELOUSAS AND VANESSA HARRIS, JUDGE, CITY COURT OF OPELOUSAS, WARD 1 CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:10-cv-1649 JUDGE MELANÇON MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA
RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW
In this civil rights lawsuit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the plaintiff has sued two defendants, the City of Opelousas and City Court Judge Vanessa Harris. Judge Harris was sued in both her official capacity and her individual capacity. In her answer, Judge Harris pleaded qualified immunity. The undersigned has, therefore, conducted an evaluation of the plaintiff's complaint to determine whether it meets the applicable heightened pleading requirement.1 After review, the undersigned concludes that the plaintiff has supported her claims against Judge Harris "with sufficient precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality of defendants' conduct at the time of the alleged
See Shultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir. 1995); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996).
acts."2 Ms. Mayeux, the plaintiff, alleges that she was employed by the City of Opelousas and the Opelousas City Court as an administrative assistant. She further alleges that, on or about April 21, 2010, she posted an article on the bulletin board, which was taken from the internet, comparing the nutritional value of brown sugar and white sugar. She further alleges that, on May 5, 2010, Judge Harris terminated her employment because the article Ms. Mayeux posted on the bulletin board conveyed a negative racial connotation in violation of a City Court policy. Although the court may later determine the facts in favor of the defendants, the sole issue presented here is whether the plaintiffs have satisfied the heightened pleading requirement of Shultea v. Wood. The undersigned concludes that they have. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that there is no need for an order banning or limiting discovery with regard to the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, and the case should proceed in accordance with the existing Scheduling Order (Rec. Doc. 5). Signed in Lafayette, Louisiana, this 1st day of March, 2011.
Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d at 1434.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?