Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 18-3888 SECTION: "A" (1)
08-24-2018
MICHAEL NICHOLAS MARSHAL v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 10) filed by Defendant, Ascension Parish Sheriff's Deputy Scott Charleville. Plaintiff, Michael Nicholas Marshall (pro se), has not filed a response. The motion, submitted on August 22, 2018, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiff Michael Nicholas Marshall has filed this complaint pro se against several defendants, including the State. The Court has reviewed the complaint numerous times in an attempt to understand Marshall's allegations. Marshall appears to assert that he has an invalid detainer of some sort that has caused him in the past to be stopped and arrested, although it also appears that he was properly incarcerated at least once for other crimes. The complaint references an arrest in 2012 in East Baton Rouge Parish, and an arrest in Ascension Parish in 2015. Marshall also complains about a search of a vehicle owned by Mr. Earl Willyard in 2015. It appears that Marshall is not incarcerated at this time.
Marshall filed his federal complaint on April 11, 2018. Marshall claims that his rights have been violated and the relief that he seeks is to have his MBA tuition paid, his rights restored, and $250,000.00. (Rec. Doc. 1 at 3). The complaint, which again is difficult to understand, fails to suggest a violation of any federal right that occurred in the year preceding the filing of the complaint. Moreover, the complaint provides no basis whatsoever to impute individual fault against any of the defendants sued personally in their individual capacities.
Deputy Scott Charleville is the sole movant on the instant motion to dismiss. The argument that Charleville raises in support of his motion to dismiss is that all of Marshall's claims, whether state or federal, are prescribed.
Again, the complaint provides no basis for liability under any theory as to Deputy Charleville. Even if he was involved in arresting Marshall in 2012 or 2015 or in searching the Willyard vehicle in 2015, any claim arising out of those incidents was prescribed by the time that Marshall filed this lawsuit. Assuming that Marshall has a valid cause of action against some official as to an extant criminal attachment, Deputy Charleville is not the proper defendant to answer for that claim.
The Court is not suggesting that Marshall would have standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim with respect to a vehicle that he did not own. --------
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 10) filed by Defendant, the Ascension Parish Sheriff's Deputy Scott Charleville is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to this defendant.
August 24, 2018
/s/_________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE