Derise v. Acadian Ambulance Corp.

Full title: BEAU ASHLEY DERISE v. ACADIAN AMBULANCE CORP., ET AL.

Court: United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana

Date published: Dec 21, 2021

6:21-CV-00819 (W.D. La. Dec. 21, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action 6:19-CV-01289 6:21-CV-00069 6:21- CV-00251 6:21- CV-00368 6:21- CV-00396 6:21- CV-00457 6:21- CV-00803 6:21- CV-00806 6:21- CV-00819 6:21- CV-01889 6:21- CV-03669

12-21-2021

BEAU ASHLEY DERISE v. ACADIAN AMBULANCE CORP., ETAL.

PATRICK J. HANNA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

JUNEAU, JUDGE.

ORDER

PATRICK J. HANNA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pro se plaintiff Beau Ashley Derise has filed numerous baseless lawsuits in this district. He was offered the opportunity to clarify his complaints by testifying at a Spears hearing, but he failed to appear, ¹ and he was ordered to appear in court on December 27, 2021 to show cause why he should not be placed on the district's list of sanctioned litigants.²

1 Rec. Doc. 4 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00069; Rec. Doc. 6 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00251; Rec. Doc. 9 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00368; Rec. Doc. 9 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00396; Rec. Doc. 10 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00457; Rec. Doc. 4 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00803; Rec. Doc. 4 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00806; Rec. Doc. 4 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00819.

2 See Rec. Doc. 6 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-03669.

In all but one of the captioned lawsuits, Mr. Derise filed a pro se complaint that was dismissed either for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a plausible nonfrivolous claim upon which relief might be granted.³ In the final suit, the complaint was stricken because the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee.⁴ Mr. Derise recently sought to reopen the captioned lawsuits, filing identical motions in each of them, seeking to have summonses reissued and to have a copy of his motion attached to each of his complaints.⁵

3 Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-01289; Rec. Doc. 7 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00069; Rec. Doc. 9 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00251; Rec. Doc. 12 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00368; Rec. Doc. 12 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00396; Rec. Doc. 13 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00457; Rec. Doc. 7 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00803; Rec. Doc. 7 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00806; Rec. Doc. 7 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00819; Rec. Doc. 6 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-03669.

4 Rec. Doc. 5 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-01889.

5 Rec. Doc. 11 in Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-01289; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00069; Rec. Doc. 10 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00251; Rec. Doc. 13 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00368; Rec. Doc. 13 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00396; Rec. Doc. 14 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00457; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00803; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00806; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00819; Rec. Doc. 6 in Civil Action No. 21-cv-01889; Rec. Doc. 7 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-03669.

Some of the factual allegations set forth in the recent motions reiterate allegations made in Mr. Derise's original complaints but attribute the alleged actions to a private investigator named John Heinrich rather than insurance adjuster Thad Efferson referred to in Mr. Derise's complaints. The recent motions also allege that Mr. Heinrich engaged in fraudulent or criminal activity after Mr. Derise filed his rash of lawsuits. But neither Mr. Efferson nor Mr. Heinrich was named as a defendant in any of Mr. Derise's lawsuits; therefore, the allegations in the recent motions do not support claims that can be remedied by the court. Furthermore, Mr. Derise alleged in his motions that Mr. Heinrich stole the summonses issued in these cases, preventing service on the defendants. But Mr. Derise filed documents in some of the suits, claiming that he personally served some of the defendants.⁶ In other suits, there is no evidence that summonses were issued.⁷ Accordingly, Mr. Derise did not support his motions with valid factual or legal reasons for reopening his lawsuits.

6 Rec. Doc. 4 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00251; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00368; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00396; Rec. Doc. 9 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00457.

7 Civil Action Nos. 6:191-cv-01289; Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00069; Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00803; Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00806; Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00819; Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-01889; Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-03669.

Because Mr. Derise is not represented by counsel, his pleadings must be held to a more lenient standard than those of attorneys⁸ and construed liberally.⁹ Even after applying this standard, Mr. Derise has not presented a valid argument for reopening his lawsuits. Accordingly, because he failed to show good cause for reopening his lawsuits, IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Derise's motions¹⁰ are denied.

8 Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5^th Cir. 2002).

9 Cledera v. United States, 834 Fed.Appx. 969, 972 (5^th Cir. 2021) (citing Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 543 (5^th Cir. 2006)).

10 Rec. Doc. 11 in Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-01289; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00069; Rec. Doc. 10 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00251; Rec. Doc. 13 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00368; Rec. Doc. 13 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00396; Rec. Doc. 14 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00457; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00803; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00806; Rec. Doc. 8 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00819; Rec. Doc. 6 in Civil Action No. 21-cv-01889; Rec. Doc. 7 in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-03669.