Opinion
Civil Action 22-00162-BAJ-SDJ
11-02-2023
RODRICK S. BETZ v. JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. ACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
This pro se action asserts a violation of constitutional rights resulting from Plaintiffs overdetention while he was confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP). Plaintiffs amended complaint alleges that Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C) Secretary James LeBlanc, LSP Warden Tim Hooper, and LSP Records Department employee Tyreka Hardy unlawfully incarcerated him for 8 months past his designated release date. (Doc. 20 at 1). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (See Doc. 25 at 2).
LSP Records Department employee Tyreka Hardy was dismissed from the original complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 23 at 3). As 90 days have passed since Plaintiffs Amended Complaint again named Defendant Hardy and she has not been served, she must be dismissed without prejudice for the same reason. See Johnson v. Tosuni, No. 3:20-CV-0261-E-BK, 2020 WL 3260092, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:20-CV-0261-E-BK, 2020 WL 3259800 (N.D. Tex. June 16, 2020) (dismissing without prejudice following pro se plaintiffs two unsuccessful attempts at service).
Plaintiffs official capacity claims for monetary damages have been dismissed. (See Doc. 23 at 3).
Now before the Court is Defendants' Second Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction And For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. 28, the “Motion”), and a response by Plaintiff (Doc. 32). Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint is conclusory and vague, that they are entitled to qualified immunity in connection with Plaintiffs remaining claims against them, and that Plaintiffs state law claims of false imprisonment should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not alleged that the Defendants physically detained him. (See id. at 4-8). Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the Motion. (See Doc. 32).
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35, the “Report”) recommending that the Motion be denied (See Doc. 35 at p. 5). The Defendants object to the Report. (Doc. 38).
Upon de novo review and having carefully considered Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc. 20), the Addendum to Amended Complaint (Doc. 25), the parties' pleadings (Docs. 28, 32), the Defendants' objection to the Report (Doc. 38), and related filings, the Court agrees with the Report's findings.
On the qualified immunity issue, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff alleges facts tending to show deliberate indifference on the part of Defendants LeBlanc and Hooper. (See Doc. 35 at 5). Namely, Plaintiff alleges that despite knowledge of a faulty computer system, numerous meritorious claims for overdetention, prior litigation regarding overdetention, and the payment of settlements for overdetention claims, Defendants knowingly failed to act to ensure his timely release. (Id.). Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that he spent eight months in unlawful detention because of this inaction, carelessness, and ineptitude. (See Doc. 20 at 1-2). Nothing more is required of Plaintiff at this stage. See, e.g., Buchicchio v. LeBlanc, No. CV 22-00147-BAJ-EWD, 2023 WL 2027809, at *14 (M.D. La. Feb. 15, 2023) (Jackson, J.) (“Plaintiffs allegations that Secretary LeBlanc failed to adopt policies to prevent his unlawful detention easily overcome Secretary LeBlanc's qualified immunity defense at [motion-to-dismiss] stage.”). Crucially, the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed its decades-old rule that “overdetention by thirty days is a per se deprivation of due process.” Crittindon v. LeBlanc, 37 F.4th 177 (5th Cir. 2022), cert, denied, No. 22-1171, 2023 WL 6377920 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2023). By that logic, this Plaintiff alleges a per se deprivation of due process eight times over.
With respect to the state law claims of false imprisonment, Defendants argue that Plaintiff needed to allege LeBlanc and Hooper's role in Plaintiffs detention. (Doc. 28-1 at 13-14). To the contrary, Plaintiffs pro se allegations against these DPS&C employees are sufficient. See Hicks v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr., 595 F.Supp.3d 463, 487 (M.D. La. 2022), aff'd in part, appeal dismissed in part sub nom. Hicks v. LeBlanc, No. 22-30184, 2023 WL 5694871 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2023) (Dick, C.J.) (denying motion to dismiss false imprisonment claim for overdetention against Secretary Leblanc); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)).
In sum, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion in this matter. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion (Doc. 28) be and is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Tyreka Hardy be and are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs failure to timely effect service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby immediately REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of a Scheduling Order to proceed with the litigation of the above-captioned matter.