Vidrine v. Ackal et al

Filing 8

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) reply to the qualified immunity defense pled by the defendant within 20 days of receipt of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 6/20/2016. (crt,Chicola, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
CHRISTINE VIDRINE

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0449

VS.

*

JUDGE JAMES

LOUIS M. ACKAL, ET L

*

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WHITEHURST

ORDER
Review of the complaint reveals that defendants, Louis M. Ackal and Trevor
Landry, were sued individually. Review of the answer filed by the defendants reveals
that they have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. To the extent that the
defendants were sued in their individual capacities, the heightened pleadings
requirements apply. See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996).
The undersigned finds that the allegations are insufficient as to these
defendants. Accordingly, pursuant to the suggestion in Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d
1427, 1432-34 (5th Cir. 1995), IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff file a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 7(a) reply to the qualified immunity defense pled by the defendant within twenty
(20) days of receipt of this order. Specifically, the reply shall state as to each
defendant: (1) the constitutional rights that said defendant personally violated; (2) the

facts that support the allegations against said defendant; and (3) the reasons why said
defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Failure to comply with this order will invite the imposition of sanctions under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), including possible dismissal of all claims. See
Reyes v. Sazan, 168 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 1999). Should plaintiff fail to file the Rule 7(a)
reply, defense counsel shall promptly notify the court by filing an appropriate motion.
Signed in Lafayette, Louisiana, this 20th day of June, 2016.