Henagan v. City of Lafayette

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: April 5, 2022
• Docket: 6:21-cv-03946
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

GEORGE K HENAGAN CASE NO. 6:21-CV-03946

VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

CITY OF LAFAYETTE ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICK J. HANNA

MEMORANDUM RULING

Before the Court are various motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by defendants. (Rec. Docs. 17, 19, 20, 25, 26). These motions were referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636 and the standing orders of this Court. Considering the evidence, the law, and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons explained below, the Court the pending motions are denied as MOOT. Factual Background This suit was filed by Plaintiff, George K. Henagan, alleging that certain provisions of Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government Municipal Code (“Code”) are unconstitutional. Specifically, Henagan asserts that defendants used various municipal ordinances to criminally penalize him for panhandling, in violation of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution. Henagan seeks injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from engaging in future enforcement of La. R.S. 12:97 and Code § 62-71, 62-32, and 62-38 against him or others as a

means of deterring panhandling.1 Henagan further seeks declaratory judgment from the Court declaring the subject ordinances unconstitutional. Finally, Henagan seeks monetary relief for the alleged deprivation of his state and federal constitutional

rights on November 12, 2020 and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.2 Separate motions to dismiss were filed by: • Lafayette Police Department;3 • Scott Morgan, Josh Meyers, and Monte Potier;4

• Josh Guillory;5 • Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government;6 and • Gregory J. Logan.7

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint against all defendants on February 22, 2022.8 The Court now addresses the aforementioned pre-amendment motions.

1 Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 29) at ¶¶ 1-8. 2 Id. at p. 18. 3 Rec. Doc. 17. 4 Rec. Doc. 19. 5 Rec. Doc. 20. 6 Rec. Doc. 25. 7 Rec. Doc. 26. 8 Rec. Doc. 29. Law and Analysis When the record of a case features an amended complaint filed after one or

more motions to dismiss, courts may elect to either consider the pending motions in light of the amended complaint or deny such motions as moot.9 A majority of Circuit Courts of Appeal and District Courts – including this Court - employ the former

approach on the basis that the filing of an amended complaint moots any motion filed in response to the original complaint.10 Based on the prevailing procedure within the majority of courts and the finding that such result may assist in clarifying the record and refining the issues for further review, this Court finds that the record

supports such a result in this case.11 Accordingly, all pending pre-amendment motions to dismiss will be denied as moot, without prejudice to the right of refiling such motions in the future to

address Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.12

9 1 Steven S. Gensler, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 15. 10 Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Eaton Corp., PLC, 2019 WL 11250161, *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2019) (collecting cases). 11 See, e.g., Beroid v. LaFleur, Civ. Act. No. 21-cv-516, 2022 WL 396165 (Jan. 24, 2022) (adopted by 2022 WL 393630 (Feb. 8, 2022); Deshotel v. PayPal, Inc., Civ. Act. No. 19-cv-0373, 2019 WL 4010992 (W.D. La. Aug. 22, 2019); Probado Technologies Corp. v. Smartnet, Inc., 2010 WL 918573, *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2010). 12 The court notes Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint omits claims against both the Lafayette Police Department and Monte Potier. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed herein, IT IS ORDERED that the following pending pre-amendment motions to dismiss are DENIED as MOOT, reserving unto the parties the right to refile all such motions, in light of Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint: • Rec. Doc. 17 – Motion to Dismiss by defendant Lafayette Police Department;

• Rec. Doc. 19 – Motion to Dismiss by defendants Scott Morgan, Joshua Myers, and Monte Potier;

• Rec. Doc. 20 – Motion to Dismiss by defendant Josh Guillory;

• Rec. Doc. 25 – Motion to Dismiss by defendant Lafayette city Parish Consolidated Government;

• Rec. Doc. 26 – Motion to Dismiss by defendant Gregory J. Logan.

THUS DONE in Chambers, Lafayette, Louisiana on this ___ day of April, 5th 2022. ______________________________ PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE