Stokes v. Iberia Parish Sheriffs Office et al

Filing 19

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 9/21/2015. (crt,Dauterive, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Stokes

Civil Action No. 6:15-00132

versus

Judge Rebecca F. Doherty

Sheriff’s Office Iberia Parish, et al

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW
In this §1983 civil rights suit, plaintiff has sued defendants Iberia Parish
Sheriff’s Office though its Sheriff, Louis M. Ackal, and six (6) Iberia Parish Deputy
Sheriffs in their official and individual capacities. In their answers, defendants plead
qualified immunity. R. 1; 14. The undersigned has therefore conducted an evaluation
of plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint to determine whether it meets the
applicable heightened pleading requirement. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, (5th
Cir. 1995).1
After review, the undersigned concludes that the plaintiff has “supported [her]
claims 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.” Schultea, 47
F.3d at 1434. Although the court may later determine the facts in favor of defendants,

1

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).

the sole issue presented here is whether plaintiff has satisfied the heightened pleading
requirement of Shultea, which the undersigned concludes she has. Thus, no order
limiting discovery under Schultea is appropriate.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 21st day of September 2015.

-2-