Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2385, SECTION "C" (3)
March 5, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, Darrel Edward West, Sr., filed the above-captioned pro se and in forma pauperis complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Rodney Jack Strain, Marlin Peachey, Walter P. Reed, Bruce Dearing, Jack McGucken, Elaine W. Guillot, Malise Prieto, and Dr. Peter Galvan asserting numerous and varied claims. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.
Rec. Doc. 99.
Most of plaintiff's claims have been dismissed. All claims against Reed, Dearing, McGucken, Guillot, and Galvan were dismissed. In addition, the claims against Strain for false arrest and false imprisonment were dismissed, as were the claims against Peachey for illegal confiscation of medical supplies and excessive force. Also dismissed were the claims against Strain and Peachey in their individual capacities for violating plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act by assigning him to a top bunk. However, the claims against Strain and Peachey for inadequate supervision remain, as do the claims against them in their official capacities for violating plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act by assigning him to a top bunk. Additionally, the claims against Prieto remain.
Rec. Docs. 88 and 110.
Rec. Doc. 88.
Currently pending before the Court is Prieto's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was ordered to file a memorandum in opposition to that motion no later than January 21, 2004; however, he has failed to do so.
Rec. Doc. 113.
Rec. Doc. 114.
Standard for Summary Judgment
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court may grant judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "Procedurally, the party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Taita Chemical Co., Ltd, v. Westlake Styrene Corp., 246 F.3d 377, 385 5th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). The party opposing summary judgment must then "go beyond the pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file/ designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56); see also Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Goel, 274 F.3d 984, 991 (5th Cir. 2001).
'"[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. . . . If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted."' Thomas v. Barton Lodge II, Ltd., 174 F.3d 636, 644 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted)). "After the nonmovant has been given the opportunity to raise a genuine factual issue, if no reasonable juror could find for the nonmovant, summary judgment will be granted." Caboni v. General Motors Corp., 278 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2002).
Because plaintiff's complaint was virtually incomprehensible, the Court held a Spears hearing in this matter on February 26, 2003, to allow plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to advise the Court of the nature of his claims. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). At that hearing, plaintiff testified that his claim against Clerk of Court Malise Prieto is that she was responsible for plaintiff not being placed on the list of persons to be transported to court when he had a court date. Plaintiff essentially alleged that Prieto denied his constitutional rights to access to courts and to a speedy trial by obstructing his efforts to appear in court and have his criminal charges resolved.
"[T]he Spears procedure affords the plaintiff an opportunity to verbalize his complaints, in a manner of communication more comfortable to many prisoners." Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (5th Cir. 1998). The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that aSpears hearing is in the nature of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) motion for more definite statement. Eason v. Holt. 73 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 1996).Spears hearing testimony becomes a part of the total filing by the pro se applicant. Id.
Prieto argues in her motion that she is entitled to qualified immunity. The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held:
As a general matter, the qualified immunity doctrine shields public officials acting within the scope of their official duties. However, the qualified immunity doctrine only protects officials insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
This Court applies a two-prong analysis to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right. This Court has refined this first step into three separate components:
First, the plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a constitutional right. Second, [the court] must determine whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Finally, [the court] must determine whether the record at least gives rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants actually engaged in the conduct that violated this clearly established right.
Chiu [v. Piano Independent School District. 260 F.3d 330, 343 (5th Cir. 2001)] (quoting Wallace v. Wellborn. 204 F.3d 165, 167 (5th Cir. 2000)). Second, the Court must determine whether the defendants' conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation.Chiu v. Plano Independent School District. 339 F.2d 273, 279 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the motion for summary judgment, it is argued that plaintiff fails on the first prong, because Prieto engaged in no conduct that violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. In support of her motion for summary judgment, Prieto submitted an affidavit in which she stated in pertinent part:
1. My name is Malise Prieto. I am a person of the full age of majority and domiciled in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
2. I am the Clerk of Court for the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany. I am the custodian of record for the matters entitled " State of Louisiana v. Darrel E. West" bearing case numbers 72-22876, 72-22928, 337893 and 337894 in the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany.
3. When a presiding judge informs the Clerk's office of a hearing date or a trial date, it is the duty of the Clerk's office to send notices of hearings and trials [to] all parties including the defendant and/or his attorney.
4. If a defendant is a pretrial detainee or a prisoner held in the St. Tammany Parish Jail, the Clerk's office also forwards a subpoena for the pretrial detainee or prisoner in the St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the hearing or trial.
5. In the matters entitled "State of Louisiana v. Barrel E. West," bearing case numbers 72-22876, 72-22928, 337893 and 337894 in the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, the record of the criminal proceedings show the following sequence of events:
a. On May 8, 2001, a hearing was held on the Seventy-Two Hour Hearing to determine bond and counsel. The Court ordered the Office of Public Defender to be appointed to represent the defendant. Darrel West was present at this hearing.
b. On May 16, 2001, John R. Simmons, Jr. of the Office of Public Defender filed a Motion for Speedy Trial.
c. On May 18, 2001, John R. Simmons, Jr. filed an Application for Reduction of Bail. Also, on this date, a hearing was held on the Seventy-Two Hour Hearing to determine bond and counsel. The Court ordered the Office of Public Defender to be appointed to represent the defendant. Darrel West was present at this hearing.
c.[sic] On May 21, 2001, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to the Office of Public Defender setting a hearing on the Application for Reduction of Bail on May 29, 2001. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the hearing on the Application for Reduction of Bail on May 29, 2001.
d. On May 29, 2001, a hearing was held on the Application for Reduction of Bail. Both Darrel West and his attorney, John R. McGuckin, were in attendance.
e. On June 14, 2001, John R. Simmons, Jr. filed another Application for Reduction of Bail and Motion for Speedy Trial.
f. On June 29, 2001, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to the Office of Public Defender setting the hearing on the Application for Reduction of Bail for July 18, 2001. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the hearing on the Application for Reduction of Bail on July 18, 2001.
g. On July 18, 2001, a hearing was held on the Application for Reduction of Bail and the Court ordered the matter transferred to Division "B." Both Darrel West and his attorney was present at this hearing.
h. On July 25, 2001, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to the Office of Public Defender setting a hearing on the Application for Reduction of Bail for September 7, 2001. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the hearing on the Application for Reduction of Bail on September 7, 2001.
i. On July 26, 2001, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to Darrel West at the St. Tammany Parish Jail and copied to the Office of Public Defender setting a hearing on the Motion to Quash for September 7, 2001. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the hearing on the Application for Reduction of Bail on September 7, 2001.
j. On August 29, 2001, the District Attorney's Office forwarded a letter to the Clerk of Court's office assigning the matter for an arraignment on September 5, 2001.
k. On August 30, 2001, the District Attorney's Office filed a Felony Bill of Information and a Misdemeanor Bill of Information. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the felony arraignment on September 5, 2001.
l. On September 5, 2001, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West in the St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the felony jury trial on November 12, 2001 and a pretrial conference on October 17, 2001.
m. On September 6, 2001, a Notice of Jury Trial was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the trial by jury on November 12, 2001 and a pretrial conference on October 17, 2001.
n. On September 14, 2001, a Notice of Jury Trial was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the trial by jury on November 12, 2001 and resetting a pretrial conference from October 17, 2001 to October 26, 2001. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the felony jury trial on November 12, 2001 and for the pretrial conference on October 26, 2001.
o. On September 18, 2001, John J. McGuckin filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars and Discovery and Inspections and a Motion to Suppress Evidence.
p. On September 21, 2001, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the Motion for Bill of Particulars and Discovery and Inspection and Motion to Suppress Evidence for hearing on October 26, 2001.
q. On October 3, 2001 a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the Motion to Quash and Continued in Reminding Motion to Quash for a hearing on October 26, 2001.
r. On November 12, 2001, John J. McGuckin filed an Application for Hearing to Determine Defendant's Mental Condition.
s. On November 15, 2001, a Notice of Appointment was forwarded to Dr. Rafael Salcedo appointing him to examine Darrel West in the St. Tammany Parish Jail Also, on this date, a Notice of Appointment was forwarded to Dr. Richard Richoux appointing him to examine Darrel West in the St. Tammany Parish Jail. Both these letters were copied to John J. McGuckin.
t. On November 20, 2001, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the Lunacy Hearing for February 6, 2002. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the lunacy hearing on February 6, 2002.
u. On November 28, 2001, Pamela Legendre, Law Clerk for the Honorable Judge Elaine Guillot, forwarded a letter to Darrel West advising that the motions that he filed would not be set for a hearing pending the outcome of the lunacy hearing.
v. On December 3, 2001, a letter was forwarded to Darrel West in the St. Tammany Parish Jail enclosing a certified copy of the Motion for Signature Bond which was denied by Judge Guillot.
w. On December 17, 2001, Pamela Legendre, Judge Guillot's Law Clerk, forwarded a letter to Darrel West returning his letter mailed directly to her.
x. On December 18, 2001, a subpoena was issued for Dr. Raphael Salcedo and Dr. Richard Richoux to appear in court on February 6, 2002 for the lunacy hearing. Also, on this date, Judge Guillot entered an Order stating that all the motions filed by Darrel West be denied pending the outcome of the lunacy hearing. On this same date, a certified copy of Judge Guillot's Order was forwarded to Darrel West in the St. Tammany Parish Jail.
y. On February 22, 2002, a Notice of Jury Trial was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the trial for March 25, 2002 and a pretrial conference for March 7, 2002.
z. On March 5, 2002, John J. McGuckin filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record which was granted on March 7, 2002.
aa. On March 18, 2002, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the lunacy hearing for April 26, 2002. Also, on this date, a letter was forwarded to Sheriff Charles Foti to serve a subpoena for Dr. Richard Richoux to appear for the lunacy hearing on April 26, 2002. A summons was also issued for Dr. Raphael Salcedo to appear for the lunacy hearing on April 26, 2002. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the lunacy hearing on April 26, 2002.
bb. On March 26, 2002, a Notice of Jury Trial was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the trial for April 29, 2002 and the pretrial conference for April 8, 2002. On this date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the trial on April 29, 2002 and the pretrial conference on April 8, 2002.
cc. On April 26, 2002, a Notice of Jury Trial was forwarded to John J. McGuckin setting the trial for June 17, 2002 and the pretrial conference on June 5, 2002. On this same date, a letter was forwarded to Sheriff Charles Foti requesting that a summon[s] be issued for Dr. Richard Richoux to appear at trial on June 17, 2002. Also, on this date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West to appear in court for the felony jury trial on June 17, 2002 and the pretrial conference on June 5, 2002.
dd. On May 2, 2002, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to James Williams setting the lunacy hearing for May 17, 2002. On this date, a letter was forwarded to Sheriff Charles Foti requesting a summon[s] be issued for Dr. Richard Richoux to appear at the lunacy hearing on May 17, 2002. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for the lunacy hearing on May 17, 2002.
ee. On May 17, 2002, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West to appear in court for the felony jury trial on July 15, 2002 and the pretrial conference on June 28, 2002.
ff. On July 22, 2002, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to James Williams setting the lunacy hearing for August 19, 2002. On this date, a letter was forwarded to Sheriff Charles Foti requesting that a summon[s] be issued for Dr. Richard Richoux to appear for the lunacy hearing on August 19, 2002. A summons was also issued for Dr. Raphael Salcedo to appear for the lunacy hearing on August 19, 2002. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Prison to appear in court for the lunacy hearing on August 19, 2002.
gg. On August 5, 2002, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to James Williams setting the lunacy hearing on August 22, 2002. On this date, a summons was issued for Dr. Richard Richoux and Dr. Raphael Salcedo to appear for the lunacy hearing on August 22, 2002. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Prison to appear in court for the lunacy hearing on August 22, 2002.
hh. On August 22, 2002, Judge Guillot signed an Order of Recusal. On this date, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to James Williams setting the status hearing on October 10, 2002 before the Honorable Judge Martin Coady. On this same date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for a status hearing on October 10, 2002.
ii. On September 11, 2002, the District Attorney's Office forwarded a letter to the Clerk of Court assigning the matter for a felony jury trial on October 28, 2002-November 1, 2002 and for motions and pretrial motions on September 10, 2002.
jj. On September 13, 2002, witness summons were issued for Dr. Rafael Salcedo and Dr. Richard Richoux to appear in court for the lunacy hearing on October 10, 2002.
kk. On October 10, 2002, a lunacy hearing was held and the Court found Darrel West competent to stand trial. Both Darrel West and his counsel were present for this hearing.
ll. On November 8, 2002, a Notice of Jury Trial was forwarded to James Williams setting the trial for January 27, 2003 and a pretrial conference for December 18, 2002. On this date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West c/o St. Tammany Parish Jail to appear in court for trial on January 27, 2003 and a pretrial conference on December 18, 2003 [sic].
mm. On December 27, 2002, a letter was forwarded to James Williams advising that the matter was reallotted to Judge William J. Knight and that the matter was reassigned for trial on February 10, 2003 and a pretrial conference on January 22, 2003. On this date, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West, 228 Mars Drive, Slidell, Louisiana to appear in court for a felony trial on February 10, 2003 and a pretrial conference on January 22, 2003.
nn. On February 24, 2003, a Notice of Jury Trial was forwarded to James Williams setting the trial for March 31, 2003 and a pretrial conference for March 24, 2003.
oo. On March 5, 2003, Darrel West filed a Motion to Quash and Dismiss.
pp. On March 6, 2003, witness summons were issued for the State's witnesses to appear in court on March 31, 2003 to April 4, 2003 to testify in court.
qq. On March 12, 2003, a Notice of Assignment was forwarded to James Williams and Darrel West setting the Motion to Quash and Dismiss for a hearing on March 24, 2003.
rr. On March 25, 2003, Leigh Ann Wall, Assistant District Attorney, filed a Motion for Writ Habeas Corpus.
ss. On April 3, 2003, a hearing was held wherein Darrel West pled no contest to the charges of contributing to the delinquency of juveniles in violation of La.R.S. 14:92(A)(9).
6. Based on the above, every time the Clerk of Court's office was made aware of a hearing or trial date, a notice of assignment or a notice of jury trial was forwarded to Darrel West and/or his attorney of record. Also, a subpoena was issued for Darrel West to appear in court for the hearing or trial.
Rec.Doc. 113, Exhibit 13.
As noted, plaintiff essentially claims that Prieto denied his constitutional rights to access to the courts and a speedy trial by obstructing his efforts to appear in court and have his criminal charges resolved. Prieto argues that she engaged in no conduct that violated plaintiff's constitutional rights and, therefore, plaintiff cannot overcome even the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. This Court agrees.
As the Clerk of Court, Prieto's relevant duties were to notify the parties of upcoming court appearances and to issue the necessary subpoenas to secure attendance. Prieto's affidavit and the state court records establish that she and her staff diligently fulfilled those duties and, thus, engaged in no conduct that violated plaintiff's constitutional rights to access to the courts and a speedy trial. Plaintiff has brought forward no rebuttal evidence to the contrary. Therefore, plaintiff has not overcome the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and Prieto is entitled to qualified immunity.
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, as well as the fact that plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion, Prieto's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the claims against Prieto are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.