Lavergne v. Martinez

Filing 27

ORDER denying 26 MOTION for Rehearing re 25 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 10/16/2014. (crt,Williams, L)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE
#424229
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-2121
SECTION P
JUDGE RICHARD T. HAIK, SR.

LAINCY VASSEUR MARTINEZ

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL
ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion for Rehearing [rec. doc. 26] filed by pro se
plaintiff, Brandon Scott Lavergne ("Lavergne"). By this Motion, Lavergne requests that
this Court reconsider its prior denial of his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction. [rec. doc. 25]. Lavergne argues that for over a year he served his
former wife, Laincy Vasseur Martinez, at her address without incident, and that her
mother, Jessica Vasseur, was the one who complained about him mailing legal
correspondence to Laincy. Lavergne additionally states, that at his disciplinary hearing,
he was instructed in the future to utilize a third party process server to serve Laincy with
court documents. He apparently disagrees with this instruction and argues that he should
not be prohibited from sending legal correspondence to Laincy, through service by his
father, James Lavergne, as this prohibition is in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment
rights.
Neither of these arguments warrant reconsideration of this Court's prior ruling.
For the reasons previously stated, Lavergne has failed to satisfy his burden for issuance of
a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Furthermore, Lavergne's

attempt to recast his claim as arising under the Fourteenth Amendment does not change
this Court's ruling. As noted by the Eight Circuit in Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 210
and fn. 9 (8th Cir. 1992), to the extent that Lavergne's claim may stem from the Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process or equal protection, in the absence of prejudice to his
action against Laincy as a result of his claimed interference with his ability to serve court
documents, the claim is nevertheless without merit. For the above reasons;
The plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing [rec. doc. 26] is denied.
In Chambers, Lafayette, Louisiana October 16, 2014.

2