Price v. Rayne et al

Filing 35

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days of this order, plaintiff shall file a reply to the qualified immunity defense pled by Rayne Chief of Police Carrol Stelly in his individual capacity. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant(s) shall not file any response to the plaintiff's reply. The purpose of this order is to determine whether discovery should be banned or limited with respect to Chief Stelly, pending the filing of a Rule 12(b) Motion to dismiss, or alternatively, a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity by Chief Stelly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 09/28/2015. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WENDELL DWAYNE PRICE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-790

VERSUS

JUDGE HAIK

CITY OF RAYNE, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW ORDER
In this § 1983 civil rights lawsuit, the plaintiff sued Rayne Chief of Police
Carroll Stelly, Officer Joseph Cormier and Officer Joseph Credeur in their official
and individual capacities.

In their Answer, these defendants 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 his
claims against Officer Joseph Cormier and Officer Joseph Credeur “with sufficient
precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality of
defendants’ conduct at the time of the alleged acts.”2 The plaintiff alleges that, on or

1

See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433-34 (5th Cir. 1995); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d
190, 195 (5 Cir. 1996).
th

2

Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d at 1434.

about April 2, 2012, Officers Cormier and Credeur illegally and unlawfully arrested
him utilizing excessive force under the circumstances.
Although the court may later determine the facts in favor of these defendants,
the sole issue presented here is whether the plaintiff has satisfied the heightened
pleading requirement of Shultea v. Wood. The undersigned concludes that he has.
Accordingly, there is no need for an order banning or limiting discovery with regard
to the plaintiff’s claims against these defendants, and the case against these
defendants should proceed in accordance with the existing Scheduling Order (Rec.
Doc. 22).
It is unclear whether plaintiff has sued Chief Stelly under § 1983 or solely
under state law. However, given that plaintiff has sued Chief Stelly individually, the
Court assumes that such a claim is asserted. When an officer or other official sued
in his or her personal capacity asserts a qualified immunity defense in a civil rights
action, the plaintiff must support his or her claim “with sufficient precision and
factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality of defendant’s conduct
at the time of the alleged acts.” Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995).
As suggested in Schultea, this court will require plaintiff to file a reply to Chief
Stelly's answer asserting qualified immunity pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). If
plaintiff intends to assert a claim against Chief Stelly solely in his official capacity,
-2-

and not in his individual capacity, he shall expressly state that in his response.
Officers and other officials sued in their official capacities are not entitled to a
qualified immunity defense,3 and no heightened pleading standard is applicable.4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days of the date of this
order, the plaintiff shall file a reply to the qualified immunity defense pled by Rayne
Chief of Police Carroll Stelly in his individual capacity. The reply must allege
with specificity the constitutional rights that were violated, the facts that support
these allegations, the persons involved in these alleged violations, and the reasons
that the asserted defense of qualified immunity is inapplicable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant(s) shall not file any response to
plaintiff’s reply; any response filed will be disregarded. The purpose of this order is
to determine whether discovery should be banned or limited with respect to Chief
Stelly, pending the filing by Chief Stelly of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), or,
alternatively, a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

3

Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466-467 (5th Cir. 2008); Trent v.
Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 388-389 (5th Cir. 2015).
4

Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d at 195.
-3-

This process does not absolve any defendant from filing a timely motion to dismiss
or motion for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.5
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 28th day of September 2015.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

The Fifth Circuit in Schultea stated:

The district court may ban discovery at this threshold pleading stage and may limit
any necessary discovery to the defense of qualified immunity. The district court need
not allow any discovery unless it finds that plaintiff has supported his claim with
sufficient precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality
of defendant’s conduct at the time of the alleged acts. Even if such limited discovery
is allowed, at its end, the court can again determine whether the case can proceed and
consider any motions for summary judgment under Rule 56.
Schultea, 47 F.3d at 1432-34.
-4-