Ahart et al v. Angelle et al

Filing 9

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 plaintiff's claims against the defendants, and the case should proceed in accordance with the existing 8 Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 3/6/2014. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
MICHAEL AHART, individually and
on behalf of hid minor daughter,
ALEXIS AHART

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-CV-02787

VERSUS

JUDGE HAIK

PAUL MOUTON as the duly elected
City Marshal of the City of Opelousas
and Deputy Marshal FRANK ANGELLE,
individually and in his capacity as
Deputy Marshal for the City of Opelousas

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW

In this § 1983 civil rights lawsuit, the plaintiff sued Opelousas City Marshal
Paul Mouton in his official capacity and Opelousas Deputy City Marshal Frank
Angelle in both his individual and official capacities. An answer was filed on behalf
of both defendants. In the answer, Deputy Marshal Angelle 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

1

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

Because the claims asserted against Marshal Mouton are expressly in his
official capacity and not in his individual capacity, he is not entitled to a qualified
immunity defense,2 and this review applies only to the claims asserted against Deputy
Marshal Angelle, as no heightened standard is allowed for actions against individual
defendants in their official capacities.3
After review, the undersigned concludes that the plaintiff has supported his
claims against Deputy Marshal Angelle “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.”4 The plaintiff alleges that, on or about August 22, 2013,
Deputy Marshal Angelle entered the plaintiff’s residence without a search warrant,
without first obtaining the consent of the property’s owner, and without the existence
of any relevant exigent circumstances. The plaintiff further alleges that Alexis Ahart,
a minor, was present inside the residence when Deputy Marshal Angelle entered, and
that she observed him searching and photographing the residence. Ms. Ahart
telephoned her father, who allegedly instructed her to videotape Deputy Marshal

2

Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2009); Stidham v. Texas
Com’n on Private Sec., 418 F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir. 2005); Jackson v. Galan, 868 F.2d 165, 168 (5th
Cir. 1989).
3

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

4

Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d at 1434.
-2-

Angelle’s actions. Deputy Marshal Angelle then allegedly began yelling at Ms.
Ahart, told her to cease recording, grabbed her, touched her breasts, shoved her,
twisted her wrist, took the phone from her, and deleted the video and photographs she
had taken. The plaintiff claims that Deputy Marshal Angelle used excessive force
under the circumstances, violated Ms. Ahart’s civil rights, unlawfully searched the
premises, and battered Ms. Ahart, resulting in physical and emotional injuries.
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 plaintiff’s claims against the defendants, and the
case should proceed in accordance with the existing Scheduling Order (Rec. Doc. 8).
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 6th day of March 2014.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-