Haynes v. Lee et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 18 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 23 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff may amend his complaint within fourteen (14) days of this order. Thereafter Defendants may re-urge their motions to dismiss if appropriate. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 5/22/2023. (crt,Crick, S)

Case 6:22-cv-00534-RRS-CBW Document 28 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 309

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

CARROLL WAYNE HAYNES #305815

CASE NO. 6:22-CV-00534

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT R.
SUMMERHAYS

RALPH K LEE JR ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL B.
WHITEHURST

ORDER
Before the Court are the following motions to dismiss:
• Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss by Feliciana Forensic Facility (Rec. Doc.
16);
• Motion to Dismiss by M. Bofill Duhe, in his official capacity as District
Attorney for the 16th Judicial District, and Ralph Lee, former Assistant
District attorney for the 16th Judicial District (Rec. Doc. 18); and
• Motion to Dismiss by F.T. Friedberg (Rec. Doc. 23).
In response to Defendants’ motions, Plaintiff requested an opportunity to
amend the complaint. (Rec. Doc. 26-1; 27-1). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, a court
should freely give leave to amend a complaint when justice so requires. Therefore,
a court “[g]enerally. . . should not dismiss an action for failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6) without giving plaintiff ‘at least one chance to amend.’” Hernandez v.

Case 6:22-cv-00534-RRS-CBW Document 28 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 310

Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., 306 F. App'x 180, 182 (5th Cir. 2009); Great Plains Trust
Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 329 (5th Cir. 2002). See
also Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1986) (noting that “[a]
complaint sought to be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) may generally be amended to
cure its deficiencies.”). Indeed, “district courts often afford plaintiffs at least one
opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies before dismissing a case, unless it is clear
that the defects are incurable or the plaintiffs advise the court that they are unwilling
or unable to amend in a manner which will avoid dismissal.” Great Plains Trust Co.
v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 329 (5th Cir. 2002). The
decision to allow amendment of a party's pleadings is within the sound discretion of
the district court. Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994);
Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 320 (5th Cir. 1991).
The Court finds that it would be inequitable to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
without allowing him an opportunity to remedy the issues raised in Defendants’
motions. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 16; Rec.
Doc. 18; and Rec. Doc. 23) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may
amend his complaint within fourteen (14) days of this order. Thereafter Defendants
may re-urge their motions to dismiss if appropriate.

Case 6:22-cv-00534-RRS-CBW Document 28 Filed 05/22/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 311

Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 22nd day of May, 2023.

____________________________________
CAROL B. WHITEHURST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE