Opinion
Civil Action 22-18-JWD-EWD
05-31-2024
DOMINICK IMBRAGUGLIO #522412 v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, ET AL.
ORDER
JOHN W. deGRAVELLES JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 91) (“Motion”) filed by defendants Burl Cain, Joseph Lamartiniere, Chad Oubre, John Tubbs, James Cruze, Tim Delaney, and John Does 1-6 (collectively, “Remaining Defendants”). All except the Does are current or former Wardens or Assistant Wardens at Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”) made defendants in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff Dominick Imbraguglio (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion, (Doc. 93), and Remaining Defendants have filed a reply, (Doc. 94). Oral argument is not necessary. The Court has carefully considered the law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule.
This case involves Plaintiff's continued presence in solitary confinement at LSP. As the parties well know, the Court is very familiar with the allegations Plaintiff makes in the original Complaint (Doc. 1) and First Supplemental and Amending Complaint (Doc. 65) (“FSAC”). These allegations have been the subject of two prior rulings which have resulted in the dismissal of all claims against all defendants other than the Remaining Defendants. See Imbraguglio v. LeBlanc, No. 22-18, 2023 WL 2601909 (M.D. La. Mar. 22, 2023) (deGravelles, J.), Doc. 63 (“First MTD Ruling”); Imbraguglio v. LeBlanc, No. 22-18, 2024 WL 966880 (M.D. La. Mar. 6, 2024) (deGravelles, J.), Doc. 96 (“Second MTD Ruling”). Plaintiff's claims, and the standard by which these motions are judged, need not be repeated here.
Remaining Defendants now move for dismissal of the claims against them. (Doc. 91.) Remaining Defendants argue that (1) the reasons given in the Court's First MTD Ruling as to the other defendants in this case apply with equal force to them, and (2) Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies detailed in the First MTD Ruling in his FSAC. (Doc. 91-1 at 3-4.)
Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (Doc. 93.) Plaintiff maintains that the original Complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action against the Remaining Defendants and that the FSAC “deletes allegations that were misleading in his original Complaint and clarifies the relief sought.” (Doc. 93 at 5-6.)
In reply, Remaining Defendants largely repeats from the Motion. (Doc. 94 at 2.) These defendants add, however, (1) that Plaintiff's opposition merely echoes arguments that were rejected in the First MTD Ruling, (2) that Plaintiff still fails to identify what new facts the FSAC has made to cure the prior deficiencies, and (3) that Plaintiff has not demonstrated (a) how Remaining Defendants were deliberately indifferent, and (b) how Plaintiff has overcome qualified immunity. (Id. at 2-3.)
Having carefully considered the matter, the Court agrees with Remaining Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the First MTD Ruling would somehow not apply with each force as to the Remaining Defendants. Moreover, since the instant motion was filed, the Court issued the Second MTD Ruling detailing how Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies of the prior complaint in the FSAC. Since that ruling, Plaintiff has offered nothing to show that a different result is warranted. Finally, for the same reasons given in the Second MTD Ruling, the Court will deny Plaintiff further leave to amend.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 91) filed by defendants Burl Cain, Joseph Lamartiniere, Chad Oubre, John Tubbs, James Cruze, Tim Delaney, and John Does 1-6 is GRANTED. All claims against these defendants in their official capacity are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and all claims against them in their individual capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.