Billiot v. Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: July 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01402
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DONOVAN LEE BILLIOT CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-1402

TERREBONNE PARISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION AM@(5) COMPLEX, ET AL.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

in forma pauperis pro se

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding was filed by plaintiff, Donovan Lee Billiot, a pretrial detainee housed at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex. In his lawsuit against defendants, the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex, Warden Rhonda Ledet, Sheriff Timothy Soignet, and the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, he claims that he injured himself while restrained at the jail. He alleges that he was in the hospital for detoxification the day after his arrest and then returned to the jail. He recalls nothing else. He awoke to find himself back in the hospital with a broken shoulder and a big knot on his head. He was told that he was fully restrained and shackled to the 1 medical bench at the jail when he stood up and fell on his shoulder and knocked himself out. 2 He requests monetary compensiant iofonr fmoar cpruaeulp aenrids unusual punishment. A proceeding brought may be dismissed as frivolouBso ouknedre vr. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if the claim alleged therein has no arguable basis in law or fact, 1 IEdCF No. 1 at 5. 2 Kingsley v. Hendrickson see also B el.l avt. 6W. Porlefitsrhial detainees have a due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to be free “from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment.” , 576 U.S. 389, 397, 400 (2015); , 441 U.S. 520, 535–36 (1979) (“In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention that implicate only the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee.” Billiot Koonce , 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993), or if siete f aaillsso to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 28 U.S.C. §1915A, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Liberally construing the complaint, it is the recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge that this matter be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Billiot names Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex (TPCJC) as a defendant in this case. However, the jail is not a proper defendant. It is well-settledM thitacth e“[llt ]vh. eJe [fjfaeirls]o ins mPaerrieshly C ao brrueicldtiionnga, ln Coet nat ‘eprerson’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Culberts, oCni vv. . AJ.cPt.iSo.On .No. 13-4963, 2013 WL 6002770, at *3 (E.D. La. Nov. 12, 2013); accord Stamps v, . CJievff. eArcsotino nP aNrois.h 1 C6o-1rr5e9c5ti8o,n 2a0l 1C7e nWteLr 5133209, at *3 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2017) (citing adopted , Civ. Action No.

12-1767, 2012 WL 30P2o6r8te0r8 ,v a. tS *t2. B(Ee.rDn.a Lrad. JPualyri s1h2 , J2a0il12), , 2012 WL 3027945 (E.D. La. July 24, 2012)); adopted, Civ. Action No. 15-5716, 2015 WL 10323883, at *1 n. 1 (E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2015), , 2016 WL 687655 (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2016)). Because the jail cannot be sued under § 1983, any claims asserted against TPCJC should be dismissed. Billiot also names Sheriff Timothy Soignet and Warden Rhonda Ledet as defendants, although he asserts no grounds for doing so. He appears to name them simply for their purported accountability as supervisory officials for acts or omissions that occur at the

prison. Rather than name any individual state actor involved in the incident, he appears to be asserting a theory of vicarious liability. However, supervisory officials, like Sherreifsfp Soonigdneaett asunpde Wrioarrden Ledet, cannot be held liable pursuant to § 1983 under a theory of or vicarious liability simply because personnel at the jail allegedly violated the See Alton v. Texas A&M University plaintiff’s constitutional rights. , 168 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir. 1999). A supervisor may be held liable only if (1) he was “personal[ly] involve[d] in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) [there existed] a sufficient causTahl ocmonpnkeincsti vo.n B beelttween the

supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” , 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987). Additionally, a supervisor can be held liable without overt personal participation if he or she “implement[s] a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a IrdepudiatioGnr aonf cdostnasftfi vtu. Ctiiotyn aolf rBigohrgtse’r and is ‘the moving force of the constituticoenratl. dveionliaetdion.’ ” . (citing , 767 F.2d 161, 169, 170 (M5othn eClilr v.1. 9D8e5p)a, rtment of S,o 4c8ia0l USe.Sr.v i9c1es6, 107 S.Ct. 1369, 94 L.Ed.2d 686 (1987) (quoting , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)). Billiot has failed to state a non-frivolous claim against the Sheriff or Warden in either

an individual or official capacity. He does not allege that the Sheriff or Warden had any direct or personal involvement in the incident. Indeed, there appears to be no causal connection at all between their conduct and the incident alleged. He does not allege that defendants implemented any policy or practice that resulted in a constitutional deprivation. Thus, the claims against these defendants should be dismissed. Finally, Billiot names Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government (TPCG) as a defendant presumably because the incident occurred at the jail. However, the claim against this defendant is also frivolous and otherwise fails to state a claim for which relief can be

granted. TPCG, as a local governing body, is a “pSeeersMono”n ewllithin the meaning of § 1983 and therefore is subject to suit under that provision. , 436 U.S. at 694. The burden for a successful § 1983 claim against a municipality like the TPCG is twofold. The plaintiff must establish the existence of a constitutional violation and show that a specific “policy or custom” enIdacted by the municipality itself was the “moving force” of the constitutional violation. . LiabBilritoyw ant tva. cBhoelisn only when the municipality itself causes the cHoanrset ivt.u Ctiiotyn oafl vCioorlianttiho nM aist si.ssue. , 500 F. App’x 309, 316 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing

, 74 F.3d 633, 649, n. 4 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). Here, Billiot has not alleged that his constitutional rights weMreo vnieolllated as the result of a policy, practice, or custom by TPCG to support a claim under . Consequently, the claims against TPCG should be dismissed. RECOMMENDATION IT IS RECOMMEN DED DISMISFSoErD thWeI TfoHr ePgRoEinJgU DrIeCaEsons, that Billiot’s complaint be as legally frivolous and/or for failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the parDtoyu hgalsa sbse ve.n U sneirtveedd S wtaittehs nAouttioce. Athssaotc s.uch consequences will result from a failure to object. , 79 321st July F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2025.

________ MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Douglass 3