Lewis v. Jefferson Parish

E.D. Louisiana

Lewis v. Jefferson Parish

DecidedSeptember 24, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-02032

StatusUnknown

This text of Lewis v. Jefferson Parish (Lewis v. Jefferson Parish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Jefferson Parish, (E.D. La. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LEO LEWIS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 20-2032

THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON, SECTION M (2) THE JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE, JOSEPH P. LOPINTO, III, WAYNE RUMORE, JULIO ALVARADO, DONALD CLOGHER, KURT ZEAGLER, BRAEDON COHEN, and NICHOLAS BROUSSARD

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion by defendant the Parish of Jefferson (the “Parish”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1 The motion was set for submission on September 24, 2020. Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which in this case was September 16, 2020. Plaintiff Leo Lewis, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, because the motion to dismiss is unopposed, and it appearing to the Court that the motion has merit,2

1 R. Doc. 9. 2 Lewis filed this action alleging constitutional and Louisiana-state law claims arising out of his son’s death during an interaction with deputies of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”). R. Doc. 1. The Parish argues that it and the JPSO are separate legal entities and the Parish is not responsible for the actions of the JPSO or its deputies. R. Doc. 1-2. The Parish is correct on this point. Foster v. Hampton, 352 So. 2d 197, 203 (La. 1977) (holding that under Louisiana law a parish is a separate legal entity that is not vicariously liable for the acts of the sheriff or his deputies); see also Salvagio v. Doe, 2013 WL 6623921, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2013); Nall v. Parish of Iberville, 542 So. 2d 145, 149 (La. App. 1989). Because Lewis has not alleged any claims against the Parish that are not based on the deputies’ actions, its motion must be granted. IT IS ORDERED that the Parish’s motion to dismiss (R. Doc. 9) is GRANTED, and Lewis’s claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of September, 2020.

_______________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LEO LEWIS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 20-2032

THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON, SECTION M (2) THE JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE, JOSEPH P. LOPINTO, III, WAYNE RUMORE, JULIO ALVARADO, DONALD CLOGHER, KURT ZEAGLER, BRAEDON COHEN, and NICHOLAS BROUSSARD

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion by defendant the Parish of Jefferson (the “Parish”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1 The motion was set for submission on September 24, 2020. Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which in this case was September 16, 2020. Plaintiff Leo Lewis, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, because the motion to dismiss is unopposed, and it appearing to the Court that the motion has merit,2

1 R. Doc. 9. 2 Lewis filed this action alleging constitutional and Louisiana-state law claims arising out of his son’s death during an interaction with deputies of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”). R. Doc. 1. The Parish argues that it and the JPSO are separate legal entities and the Parish is not responsible for the actions of the JPSO or its deputies. R. Doc. 1-2. The Parish is correct on this point. Foster v. Hampton, 352 So. 2d 197, 203 (La. 1977) (holding that under Louisiana law a parish is a separate legal entity that is not vicariously liable for the acts of the sheriff or his deputies); see also Salvagio v. Doe, 2013 WL 6623921, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2013); Nall v. Parish of Iberville, 542 So. 2d 145, 149 (La. App. 1989). Because Lewis has not alleged any claims against the Parish that are not based on the deputies’ actions, its motion must be granted. IT IS ORDERED that the Parish’s motion to dismiss (R. Doc. 9) is GRANTED, and Lewis’s claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of September, 2020.

_______________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lewis v. Jefferson Parish, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-jefferson-parish-laed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack