Stelly v. Guidroz et al

Filing 34

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW: Plaintiff has sued St. Landry Parish Sheriff Bobby J. Guidroz, St. Landry Parish Jail Warden Wanda Gallien, Captain Craig Ortego and Officer Ricky Leger in their official and individual capacities. These defenda nts plead qualified immunity. The undersigned has therefore conducted an evaluation of plaintiff's complaint to determine whether it meets theapplicable heightened pleading requirement. After review, the undersigned concludes, plaintiff has &quo t;supported his 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." Although the court may later determine the facts in favor of th ese defendants, the sole issue presented here is whether plaintiff has satisfied the heightened pleading requirement of Shultea, which the undersigned concludes he has. Thus, no order limiting discovery under Schultea is appropriate. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 9/28/2015. (crt,Putch, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GREGORY M. STELLY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-188

VERSUS

JUDGE DOHERTY

BOBBY J. GUIDROZ, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

RULE 7(a) HEIGHTENED PLEADING REVIEW
In this §1983 civil rights suit, plaintiff has sued St. Landry Parish Sheriff
Bobby J. Guidroz, St. Landry Parish Jail Warden Wanda Gallien, Captain Craig
Ortego and Officer Ricky Leger in their official and individual capacities. In their
answer, these defendants plead qualified immunity. The undersigned has therefore
conducted an evaluation of plaintiff's complaint to determine whether it meets the
applicable heightened pleading requirement. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427,
(5th Cir. 1995); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996).
After review, the undersigned concludes that the plaintiff has “supported his
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 these
defendants, the sole issue presented here is whether plaintiff has satisfied the

heightened pleading requirement of Shultea, which the undersigned concludes he has.
Thus, no order limiting discovery under Schultea is appropriate.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 28th day of September 2015.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-