Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-607, SECTION "R"
September 11, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the motion of defendant Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 1, d/b/a West Jefferson Medical Center to dismiss, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendant's motion. The Court dismisses the federal claims against the defendant and denies defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims. Further, the Court denies defendant's motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).
I. Background
The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that on March 23, 2002, Jennifer Mae Hagardorn, Misty Marrosse, Billy Harsdorff, and Devin McKinney, all minors, arrived at 104 Beta Street, Apt. 8, in Belle Chasse, Louisiana, to pick up a friend from a party. They further allege that representatives of the Plaquemines Parish Sheriff's Department, including Officer Troy LaGreco, arrived at the scene in response to a noise complaint and detained the minors. While in the custody of the Sheriff's Department, plaintiffs say they were forced to undergo invasive procedures by defendants D. Wood and P. Landry, emergency medical technicians. Plaintiffs charge that, without their consent or the knowledge and consent of their respective parents and while still in the custody of the Sheriff's Department, they were transported to defendant West Jefferson Medical Center where employees of the hospital performed additional invasive procedures on them. Lastly, plaintiffs allege that they were denied contact with their parents or anyone other than medical personnel and the Sheriff's Department while at the hospital. ( See Pla.'s Complaint, Rec. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 20-29.)
Defendant West Jefferson Medical Center now moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). For the following reasons, the Court grants West Jefferson Medical Center's motion to dismiss as to the federal claims against it and denies its motion to dismiss plaintiffs' state law claims.
Further, the Court denies defendant's motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Dismiss i. Legal Standard
In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b) (6), the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996); American Waste Pollution Control Co. v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 949 F.2d 1384, 1386 (5th Cir. 1991). The Court must resolve doubts as to the sufficiency of the claim in plaintiff's favor. See Vulcan Materials Company v. City of Tehuacana, 238 F.3d 382, 387 (5th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Id.; Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994)).
ii. Federal Claims
Defendant West Jefferson Medical Center moves to dismiss on the basis that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against it as a municipality under Section 1983. Plaintiffs argue that West Jefferson Medical Center has not established that it is, in fact, a local government entity. LA. REV. STAT. § 46:1064 states that [t]he hospital service districts as defined in R.S. 46:1072 are hereby declared to be political subdivision of the state [.] "The Louisiana Revised Statutes applicable to suits against political subdivisions define "political subdivision" as "any parish, municipality, special district, school board, sheriff, . . . and other public or governmental body of any kind which is not a state agency." LA. REV. STAT. § 13:5102(B). Because the hospital district is a political subdivision, the Court considers the claims against West Jefferson Medical Center in light of the law applicable to local government entities.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants are liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1986, and 1988. Section 1983 provides in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress[.]Id. In Monell v. New York City Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the Supreme Court held that municipalities and other local government entities are "persons" within the meaning of Section 1983. Id. at 690. The Court also held that a local government entity cannot be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior. Id. at 691; see also Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 766 (5th Cir. 1984). Instead, a plaintiff who seeks to impose liability on a local government entity under Section 1983 must identify a "policy" or "custom" of the entity that caused the plaintiff's injury. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. "To support a claim based upon the existence of an official custom or policy, the Plaintiff must plead facts which show that: 1) a policy or custom existed; 2) the governmental policy makers actually or constructively knew of its existence; 3) a constitutional violation occurred; and 4) the custom or policy served as the moving force behind the violation." Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 532-33 (5th Cir. 1996).
In this case, plaintiffs allege a constitutional violation, but they have failed to allege any facts that show that a West Jefferson Medical Center policy or custom existed, that the policy makers actually or constructively knew of its existence, or that the custom or policy served as the moving force behind the alleged violation. The Court therefore concludes that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against West Jefferson Medical Center" and dismisses plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against defendant West Jefferson Medical Center.
Plaintiffs also allege claims under Sections 1986 and 1988. Section 1986 provides in pertinent part:
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented [.]Id. The wrongs mentioned in 42 U.S.C. § 1985 include conspiring to prevent an officer from performing duties; conspiring to obstruct justice by intimidating a party, witness, or juror; and conspiring to deprive a person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws. See 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1)-(3). Section 1988 provides, in pertinent part:
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs[.]Id.
Plaintiffs failed to bring a claim under Section 1985 and failed to allege any conspiracy in their complaint. Because plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable claim under Section 1985, they may not recover under the interrelated, dependant cause of action under Section 1986. See Galloway v. Louisiana, 817 F.2d 1154, 1159 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1987); Hamilton v. Chaffin, 506 F.2d 904, 913-14 (5th Cir. 1975). The Court therefore dismisses plaintiffs' Section 1986 claim against West Jefferson Medical Center. Likewise, plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for attorney's fees against West Jefferson Medical Center must fail because plaintiffs have not sustained their claims against it under Sections 1983 or 1986, as required by Section 1988. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988; Galloway, 817 F.2d at 1159 n. 2.
iii. State Law Claims
Plaintiffs allege that West Jefferson Medical Center is subject to state tort liability. Plaintiffs allege that West Jefferson Medical Center employees performed invasive procedures on the minors without their consent. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs have stated a claim under state law.
West Jefferson Medical Center urges this Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining viable state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) once the Court has dismissed the federal claims against it. Federal claims remain in this suit that continue to provide the basis for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims.
B. Motion for a More Definite Statement
West Jefferson Medical Center moves in the alternative for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). A district court will grant a motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) when the pleading at issue "is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e). The motion must state the defects in the pleading and the details desired. See id. A party, however, may not use a Rule 12(e) motion as a substitute for discovery. See Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. 1959). Given the liberal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8, Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored. See Mitchell, 269 F.2d at 132; Gibson v. Deep Delta Contractors, Inc., 2000 WL 28174, *6 (E.D.La.). At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that "[i]f a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice," then a Rule 12(e) motion may be appropriate. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002). In deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(e) motion, the trial judge is given considerable discretion. See Newcourt Leasing Corp. v. Regional Bio-Clinical Lab, Inc., 2000 WL 134700, *1 (E.D.La.) (citing MedRehab v. Evangeline of Natchitoches, Inc., 1998 WL 671287, *1 (E.D.La.)). Here, the Court finds that West Jefferson Medical Center has enough information before it to respond to plaintiffs' complaint and therefore denies defendant's Rule 12(e) motion.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the 42 U.S.C, §§ 1983, 1986 and 1988 claims against West Jefferson Medical Center with prejudice. The Court denies defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' state law claims. The Court also denies defendant's motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).