Opinion
2022 CA 0428
11-04-2022
ROBERT TUCKER, JR. v. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH DETENTION CENTER, ET AL.
Robert Tucker, Jr. Baton Rouge, LA Plaintiff/Appellant In Proper Person Jason P. Wixom Blake J. Arcuri Laura C. Rodrigue New Orleans, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellee West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center, et al.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of West Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit Number 47,077 Honorable Elizabeth Engolio, Presiding
Robert Tucker, Jr. Baton Rouge, LA Plaintiff/Appellant In Proper Person
Jason P. Wixom Blake J. Arcuri Laura C. Rodrigue New Orleans, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellee West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center, et al.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND WOLFE, JJ.
GUIDRY, J.
Plaintiff/Appellant, Robert Tucker, Jr., appeals from a district court judgment sustaining an exception raising the objection of no cause of action filed by defendants, West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center, "Sergeant Joe," "Sergeant Meames," and "Registered Nurse Iris" (collectively defendants), dismissing his claims against defendants with prejudice, and finding Tucker's motion for summary judgment moot. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 2, 2021, Tucker, appearing pro se> filed a Petition asserting a deprivation of rights claim against the West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In his petition and accompanying affidavit, Tucker alleged that in November and December 2020, he was an inmate housed in the West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center. Tucker alleged that on November 30, 2020, and December 2, 2020, he filed complaints with the detention center regarding "freezing cold" conditions in his cell, which conditions Tucker alleged were limited to his cell only. Tucker asserted that on December 2,2020, he pressed the suicide button on the kiosk machine and was escorted to the guard station, where he informed "Sergeant Meames" that he pressed the button due to the freezing cold conditions in his cell. Tucker alleged that he was then brought to see "Nurse Iris," at which time he informed "Nurse Iris" that he was not suicidal and pressed the button because he was freezing cold. Tucker alleged that "Nurse Iris" thereafter failed to take his vital signs and that this failure resulted in a denial of medical treatment. Additionally, Tucker alleged that beginning in January 2021, he filed complaints on the kiosk regarding his food tasting like rat poison, Raid, and Rohypnol.
Thereafter, on November 23, 2021, defendants filed an exception raising the objection of no cause of action, asserting that: West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center is not an entity capable of being sued, that Tucker failed to allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Eighth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution, and that Tucker failed to assert a valid claim for denial of medical care. A hearing on the exception was set for January 24, 2022.
Defendants asserted that while Tucker referenced the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in his petition, due to his status as a prisoner, it is actually the Eighth Amendment that would apply. However, defendants recognized that both pretrial detainees and convicted inmates are owed the same duties under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments with regard to basic human needs.
In response, Tucker filed an opposition to the exception as well as a motion for summary judgment based upon his previously filed affidavit, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and the Geneva Convention stating that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tucker did not file a memorandum or evidence in support of his motion, although he attached copies of legal authorities and referenced in his motion his previously filed affidavit. The trial court set the motion for hearing on the same date as the hearing on defendants' exception.
On the date of the hearing, the trial court heard arguments related to the exception raising the objection of no cause of action. At the conclusion of arguments, the trial court sustained defendants' exception raising the objection of no cause of action and found that Tucker's motion for summary judgment was thereby rendered moot. The trial court signed a judgment in conformity with its oral ruling.
Tucker now appeals from the trial court's judgment.
DISCUSSION
In his appeal, Tucker does not assign as error or otherwise address the portion of the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' exception raising the objection of no cause of action. Rather, the sole issue addressed by Tucker, who appears pro se, is the trial court's failure to grant his motion for summary judgment.Accordingly, because Tucker did not assign, brief, or argue any errors concerning the defendants' exception, we find any potential issues or errors related to that exception are deemed abandoned. See Frandria v. Holden, 20-0410, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/30/20), 319 So.3d 332, 337, writ not considered, 21-00692 (La. 9/27/21), 324 So.3d 102.
Although not listed as an assignment of error, Tucker's entire brief is dedicated to addressing the trial court's alleged error in failing to grant summary judgment in his favor. Furthermore, while Tucker's brief does list several additional alleged errors in its "Assignment of Alleged Errors" section, these alleged errors either do not involve errors that impacted Tucker (fe., they are alleged to be errors that affected defendants/appellees) and/or involve issues that were not briefed. Therefore, we find these additional alleged errors to be without merit and/or abandoned.
We note that assignments of error are necessary as required by Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3 "unless the interest of justice clearly requires otherwise." However, a layman assumes responsibility for his own inadequacy and lack of knowledge of both procedural and substantive law. Johnson v. Department of Health and Hospitals, 00-0071, p. 2 (La. App, 1st Cir. 2/16/01), 808 So.2d 436, 437. Tucker specifically limits his argument, and even his motion for appeal, to review of the trial court's failure to grant his motion for summary judgment. According to the minutes of the hearing, the only issue presented to the trial court prior to its ruling was the exception raising the objection of no cause of action. Once the trial court ruled on the exception and dismissed Tucker's case, it found the summary judgment motion filed by Tucker to be moot. Tucker was aware at the conclusion of the hearing, and even sought clarification from the court, that his case was being dismissed based upon the sustaining of the exception. Therefore, given Tucker's awareness at the time of the trial court's ruling and his subsequent choice to limit his argument on appeal to issues related to his summary judgment motion, we do not find that this is one of those instances where the interest of justice clearly requires or compels us to review the propriety of the trial court's actions regarding the exception raising the objection of no cause of action. See Frandria, 20-0410 at p. 7 n.3, 319 So.3d at 337 n.3.
With regard to his argument that the trial court erred in failing to grant summary judgment in his favor, we find no merit to this argument. Tucker argues in brief that he was entitled to the granting of summary judgment in his favor because he supported his summary judgment motion with his personal affidavit and defendants failed to submit opposing affidavits. As previously stated, the trial court found Tucker's motion for summary judgment moot after sustaining the defendants' exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissing his suit. Therefore, to the extent that Tucker does not challenge the trial court's ruling on defendants' exception, we find no error in the trial court's judgment finding Tucker's motion for summary judgment was moot.
On appeal, Tucker filed a Motion for Amendment of Appellee's Name and a Motion for Order Compelling Discovery. However, because we affirm the trial court's judgment, we find these motions are moot.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Robert Tucker, Jr.
AFFIRMED.