Francisco v. Edmonson et al

Filing 137

MEMORANDUM RULING: IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's 132 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in support of his motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's 124 Motion for Leave of court to file a third amended and supplemental complaint is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 6/10/2019. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
WILLIE FRANCISCO

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-00815

VERSUS

JUDGE JUNEAU

MICHAEL EDMONDSON, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

MEMORANDUM RULING
Currently pending are the plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to file a third
amended and supplemental complaint (Rec. Doc. 124) and the plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file a reply brief in support of that motion (Rec. Doc. 132). The motion for
leave to file an amended complaint is opposed. (Rec. Doc. 131). Considering the
evidence, the law, and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons fully
explained below, leave will be granted to file a reply brief but the motion for leave
to amend the complaint will be denied.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff was arrested in March 2010 and charged with negligent homicide
and other crimes in connection with a motor vehicle accident that occurred in
January 2010. He remained incarcerated until April 19, 2012 when the charges
against him were dismissed. He then initiated this lawsuit, asserting claims under
federal and state law.

In September 2014, all official-capacity claims against defendant Louisiana
State Troopers Bruner, Hanks, and Bouillion were dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, and the claims against defendant Col. Michael Edmonson that
were stated in the original complaint were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
(Rec. Doc. 30). The plaintiff was allowed to file an amended complaint with regard
to certain claims (Rec. Doc. 30), and he did so (Rec. Doc. 31). In December 2018,
the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the
plaintiff’s state-law claims for false arrest and detention and false imprisonment and
the plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988 because those

claims were prescribed. (Rec. Doc. 116). The only remaining claim is a
state-law malicious prosecution claim, and a motion for summary judgment
concerning that claim (Rec. Doc. 135) is currently pending. However, in the
instant motion, the plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add factual
allegations, a new claim against the State of Louisiana, and a new contractbased claim with a longer prescriptive period.
ANALYSIS
A.

The Applicable Standard
When the time period for amending a pleading as a matter of course has

elapsed, as in this case, a party may amend its pleadings with the consent of the
2

parties or leave of court. 1 “The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.”2 While a district court should have a substantial reason to deny a request
for leave to amend,3 “that generous standard is tempered by the necessary power of
a district court to manage a case.”4 The court may consider various factors when
deciding whether to grant a motion for leave to amend, including “undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of the amendment.”5
Ultimately, however, “[w]hether leave to amend should be granted is entrusted to
the sound discretion of the district court.”6
To determine whether a complaint is futile, courts apply the same standard of
legal sufficiency as applied under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

2

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2).

3

Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004).

4

Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie, 819 F.3d 170, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003)).
5

Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003).

6

Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214, 232 (5th Cir. 2012)
(quoting Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 3 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir.1993)).
3

Procedure. 7

Therefore, the amended complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.8
B.

The Proposed Amendment Should Not Be Permitted
In order for the plaintiff to have fully briefed his arguments in support of the

proposed amendment to the complaint, the proposed reply brief will be allowed.
However, there are three reasons why the proposed amendment to the complaint will
not be permitted.
First, it would be futile to allow the amendment in order for the plaintiff to
assert a claim against the State of Louisiana. The Eleventh Amendment of the
United States Constitution bars all suits for monetary relief brought in federal court
against a state or state agency unless the state has consented to suit or Congress has
expressly abrogated immunity.9 Louisiana has not waived sovereign immunity.10
Instead, the Louisiana legislature enacted La. R.S. 13:5106(A), which expressly
prohibits suits against the State of Louisiana, a state agency, or a political

7

Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 872-73 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Shane
v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3rd Cir. 2000)).
8

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)).
9

Raj v. Louisiana State Univ., 714 F.3d 322, 328 (5th Cir. 2013).

10

Raj v. Louisiana State Univ., 714 F.3d at 328.
4

subdivision of the state in any court other than a Louisiana state court. Further,
Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting
Section 1983.11 Therefore, any claim asserted by the plaintiff against the State of
Louisiana would be barred by sovereign immunity.
In fact, the plaintiff’s official-capacity claims against Col. Edmonson,
Trooper Bruner, Trooper Hanks, and Trooper Bouillion were dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction earlier in this litigation because they actually were claims
against an agency or alter ego of the State of Louisiana. (Rec. Doc. 22 at 8; Rec.
Doc. 29 at 6; Rec. Doc. 30).

Any claim permitted now against the State of

Louisiana would similarly have to be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Since the claim would be barred if asserted, it would be futile to permit
an amendment to the plaintiff’s complaint to assert such a claim.
Second, the proposed amendment should not be permitted because it would
assert claims that the plaintiff could have – and should have – articulated much
earlier in the litigation. In the proposed amendment, the plaintiff seeks to assert a
new contract-based claim based on a $300,000 bond allegedly issued at the time of
his arrest in 2010. If allowed, this new claim would have a prescriptive period
11

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Gov't, 279 F.3d 273, 281 (5th Cir. 2002);
Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248, 1251 (5th Cir. 1988); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345
(1979).
5

longer than the plaintiff’s claims that were dismissed as prescribed. Thus, the
plaintiff seeks to overcome the court’s earlier summary judgment ruling by asserting
a wholly new claim nine years after the events sued upon and six years after the
initiation of the lawsuit.
Although leave of court to amend a complaint should generally be freely
given, this rule “is not a mechanical absolute,” and a “busy court need not allow
itself to be imposed upon by the presentation of theories seriatim.”12 After a motion
for summary judgment has been granted, as in this case, the court has more reason
for refusing to allow amendment of the complaint because the concern for finality is
more compelling and the litigants have had their day in court with regard to the
merits of the claim.13 The Fifth Circuit has held that a district court does not abuse
its discretion when it refuses to allow the amendment of pleadings to change the
theory of a case if the amendment is offered after summary judgment and no valid
reason was shown for the party’s failure to present the new theory at an earlier point
in the litigation.14 In this case, the plaintiff was aware that he was subject to a bond
at the initiation of the lawsuit and any contractual claim arising out of that bond

12

Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 381 F.2d 459, 468-69 (5th Cir. 1967).

13

Union Planters Nat. Leasing, Inc. v. Woods, 687 F.2d 117, 121 (5th Cir. 1982).

Henry's Marine Service, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 193 Fed. App’x 267, 276 (5th
Cir. 2006) (quoting Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 381 F.2d at 470).
6
14

could have been asserted when the lawsuit was commenced in 2013, a motion for
summary judgment has already been resolved and another one is pending, and no
reason for the delay in asserting a claim based on the bond was articulated.
Accordingly, there is no sound reason for permitting the proposed amended
complaint so that the contract-based claim can be litigated.
Third, the other proposed amendments to the plaintiff’s complaint would
again allege facts concerning claims against the defendants that are related to the
accident and the investigation of the accident that were previously dismissed on
summary judgment. Following the issuance of a ruling on the merits of a claim, the
proper procedural method for seeking to have such a ruling overturned is to appeal
the ruling to a higher court not to amend the complaint to again assert claims against
the same defendants. This procedure serves the goals of pursuing finality in court
proceedings and avoiding unnecessary delay in reaching finality. The plaintiff in
this lawsuit has already been permitted to amend his complaint on two prior
occasions; a motion for summary judgment was fully briefed, argued, and ruled
upon; and the plaintiff has failed to articulate a reason why he failed to include in
his earlier complaints the factual allegations and theories of liability that are sought
to be added in the proposed amendment.

Thus, his arguments for seeking

amendment are unpersuasive and lacking in merit.
7

In summary, there is no valid reason for amending the complaint with regard
to the original defendants, it would be futile to allow the addition of the State of
Louisiana as a defendant in the lawsuit, and the proposed addition of a contractbased claim should have been asserted earlier in the litigation. For these reasons,
the proposed amendment to the plaintiff’s complaint is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a reply brief in
support of his motion for leave to amend the complaint (Rec. Doc. 132) is
GRANTED, and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to
file a third amended and supplemental complaint (Rec. Doc. 124) is DENIED.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, on June 10, 2019.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8