Dorsey v. City of Lafayette et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 41 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge James D Cain, Jr on 1/7/2022. (crt,Reeves, T)

Case 6:20-cv-00024-JDC-PJH Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 465

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

ANGELA DORSEY

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00024

VERSUS

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

CITY OF LAFAYETTE ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICK J.
HANNA

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [Doc. 41] by Lafayette
Consolidated Government (“LCG”). The motion is opposed by plaintiff Angela Dorsey
[Doc. 43] and has been fully briefed.
I.
BACKGROUND
This suit arises from Ms. Dorsey’s civil rights complaint in which she alleges she
was injured by officers of the Lafayette Police Department during the search of her
boyfriend’s home. In her lawsuit, Ms. Dorsey asserts claims under 28 USC § 1983 for
alleged violations of Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. On Defendant’s FRCP
Rule 12(b)(6) motions, this Court dismissed Ms. Dorsey’s claims of false arrest under the
Fourth Amendment, violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, cruel and
unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, punitive damages and § 1983 official
capacity claims. Later, the remaining claim for excessive force under the Fourth
Amendment was dismissed pursuant to a motion for summary judgment.

1

Case 6:20-cv-00024-JDC-PJH Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 466

Ms. Dorsey asserted complaints about her treatment during a “no knock” search
warrant which she alleges resulted in a broken toe and blood clot, as well as exacerbation
of preexisting anxiety and depression. In her Amended Complaint,1 through counsel, Ms.
Dorsey makes the following allegations: On or about February 20th, 2019, Ms. Dorsey was
lying in bed with her boyfriend in his apartment in Lafayette, Louisiana. 2 At about 3:00
a.m., officers from the Lafayette Police Department broke down windows and a door to
the apartment to gain entry.3 An “Unknown Officer” ordered Ms. Dorsey and her boyfriend
to get out of bed and instructed them to put their hands in the air.4
Ms. Dorsey, who was dressed only in her “nighty” complied.5 Ms. Dorsey asserts
that Unknown Officer immediately grabbed Ms. Dorsey, forcibly drug her outside and
slammed her to the ground.6 Ms. Dorsey claims that Unknown Officer then handcuffed her
and placed her under arrest.7 Unknown Officer took Ms. Dorsey outside of the apartment
in the yard. She asserts that during the incident, Ms. Dorsey fractured her toe and was
caused to have a blood clot.8
Defendants’ assert that the Tactical Narcotics Team identified as a risk of the search
operation that there would possibly be other individuals at the apartment and that a resident
of the apartment was a convicted felon known to carry a firearm.9 Defendants further claim

1

Doc. 8.
Id. ¶ 4.
3
Id. ¶ 5.
4
Id. ¶ 6.
5
Id. ¶ 7.
6
Id. ¶ 8.
7
Id. ¶ 8.
8
Id. ¶ 9.
9
Doc. 28-5.
2

2

Case 6:20-cv-00024-JDC-PJH Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 467

that upon arrival, the Narcotics team breached the front doors and windows and issued
verbal instructions for the occupants to show their hands and exit the residence. Ms. Dorsey
was the first to respond, where she was passed from one officer at the entrance to another
and she stumbled and fell without force as she was being passed from one officer to
another.10 Defendants’ story is corroborated by body camera footage11 which shows that
Ms. Dorsey did stumble and fall.
Ms. Dorsey attended a parade days after the search incident, on or about February
24, 2019.12 Ms. Dorsey sought medical treatment for her toe the next day, February 25,
2019, but informed medical personnel that she was injured at the parade.13
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
As one of a few statutory exceptions to the “American Rule,” requiring each party
to bear its own litigation expenses, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 allows the award of reasonable
attorney fees to a prevailing party in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 832–33 (2011). This award may be made to a defendant when
the court finds “that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without
foundation,” id. at 833 (internal quotation omitted) or that the plaintiff “continued to litigate
after it clearly became so.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 15 (1980). In determining whether
the suit was frivolous, the court should focus not on the outcome but instead on “whether .
. . the case is so lacking in arguable merit as to be groundless or without foundation[.]”

10

Exhibit 6, Officer Fred Payne Body Cam Video.
Id.
12
Doc. 28-7., p. 98:1-25.
13
Id., p. 98:22-25, p, 99:1-20.
11

3

Case 6:20-cv-00024-JDC-PJH Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 468

G&H Dev., LLC v. Penwell, 2016 WL 5396711, at *3 (W.D. La. Sep. 27, 2016) (citing
Jones v. Texas Tech Univ., 656 F.2d 1137, 1145 (5th Cir. 1981)). To this end the court can
consider factors such as whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, whether the
defendant offered to settle the suit, and whether the court held a full trial—but these factors
remain “guideposts” and frivolousness must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Id. (citing
Doe v. Silsbee Indep. Sch. Dist., 440 F. App’x 421, 425 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)).
Generally, the Fifth Circuit regards an award of attorney fees for defendants as appropriate
when the plaintiff’s claim “lacks a basis in fact or relies on an [indisputably] meritless legal
theory” or when the “plaintiff knew or should have known the legal or evidentiary
deficiencies of his claim.” Doe, 440 F. App’x at 425 (internal quotations omitted).
III.
APPLICATION
The Defendants argue that under 42 USC § 1988, the prevailing party in an action
to enforce certain provisions, including 42 USC § 1983, may be awarded reasonable
attorney fees. Defendants assert that it is the intent of Congress in allowing such awards to
prevailing defendants to “protect defendants from burdensome litigation having no legal
or factual basis.” Dean v. Riser, 240 F. 3d 505,508 (5 Cir. 2001). Defendants argue that
Ms. Dorsey’s claims were “undisputedly meritless” because her claims for alleged
violations of Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were dismissed on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion by the Defendants and her remaining claim of excessive force was
dismissed by a motion for summary judgment.

4

Case 6:20-cv-00024-JDC-PJH Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 469

Ms. Dorsey asserts that she had a valid claim against Defendants and their officers.
She argues that even though early on in the case a Motion to Dismiss was filed by
Defendants, this Court stated in the ruling that there was an issue as to whether, or not, the
force used was excessive. The Court agrees with Ms. Dorsey. If the claim would have been
found to be frivolous, the Court would have dismissed the claim at that point. However,
this Court felt there may have been some legitimacy to her claim and it was not dismissed.
The Fifth Circuit has established that the relevant inquiry is “whether the case was
so lacking in merit that it was groundless, rather than whether the claim was ultimately
successful.” U.S. v. State of Miss., 921 F.2d 604, 609 (5th Cir. 1991). The Court recognizes
that the claim was unsuccessful because the police conduct did not rise to the level of
excessive force, however this does not mean that Ms. Dorsey’s claim was meritless or
groundless. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to award attorney fees to
the Defendants in this case.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Attorney Fees [Doc. 41] is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 7th day of January, 2022.

________________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5