Williams v. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

M.D. Louisiana

Williams v. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

DecidedApril 13, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-00012

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (Williams v. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, (M.D. La. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLARENCE WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS 22-12-SDD-EWD

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE, THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND OFFICER ANDREW PALERMO RULING This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss1 filed by Defendants, Louisiana State University and A&M College (“LSU”) and the Louisiana State University Police Department (the “LSUPD”) (collectively “LSU Defendants”). Plaintiff, Clarence Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition2 to this Motion, to which LSU Defendants filed a Reply.3 For the reasons that follow, LSU Defendants’ Motion is granted. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges the following. In September 2018, LSUPD Officer Andrew Palermo (“Officer Palermo”),4 arrested Plaintiff for driving while intoxicated after Plaintiff was in a car accident.5 Officer Palermo executed an affidavit of arrest; and, in January 2019, Plaintiff was charged with several crimes related to his operation of the vehicle.6 In November 2020, “a nolle prosequi was entered on the said bill of information…”7

1 Rec. Doc. No. 5. 2 Rec. Doc. No. 10. 3 Rec. Doc. No. 12. 4 Officer Palermo is also named as a defendant but as not joined in the instant motion to dismiss. 5 Rec. Doc. No. 1-2, p. 3. 6 Id. at 4. 7 Id. Plaintiff asserts that Officer Palermo knowingly included false information in the affidavit of arrest, including that Plaintiff entered into a DWI checkpoint then turned around to exit the checkpoint and that Plaintiff smelled of marijuana.8 After the arrest, but before Officer Palermo executed the affidavit, a blood sample was taken from Plaintiff which tested negative for narcotics and alcohol.9 Plaintiff avers that Officer Palermo was aware

that the test was negative when he prepared the affidavit.10 Plaintiff asserts several causes of action: § 1983 actions for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, and Louisiana constitutional violations.11 II. LAW AND ANALYSIS LSU Defendants move to dismiss on several grounds, but the Court need only consider the first: LSU Defendants assert that they are not legal entities capable of being sued.12 Plaintiff agrees and requests leave to amend.13 La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(1) provides that the Board of Supervisors of LSU, as the post-

secondary management board for LSU and its related entities, has the capacity to sue and be sued. This Court has previously interpreted La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(1) to bar suit against LSU and the LSUPD as they lack capacity to be sued.14 Therefore, the instant Motion must be granted. III. CONCLUSION

8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 5. 12 Rec. Doc. No. 5-1, p. 6. 13 Rec. Doc. No. 10, p. 5–7. 14 Davis v. Louisiana State Univ. & A&M Coll., 2019 WL 179580, at *4 (M.D. La. Jan. 11, 2019). LSU Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss'® is granted, and LSU Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff will have 21 days from the date of this Ruling to cure the deficiencies in the Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 13, 2022.

CHIEF super Sicicy D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

18 Rec. Doc. No. 5.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLARENCE WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS 22-12-SDD-EWD

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE, THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND OFFICER ANDREW PALERMO RULING This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss1 filed by Defendants, Louisiana State University and A&M College (“LSU”) and the Louisiana State University Police Department (the “LSUPD”) (collectively “LSU Defendants”). Plaintiff, Clarence Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition2 to this Motion, to which LSU Defendants filed a Reply.3 For the reasons that follow, LSU Defendants’ Motion is granted. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges the following. In September 2018, LSUPD Officer Andrew Palermo (“Officer Palermo”),4 arrested Plaintiff for driving while intoxicated after Plaintiff was in a car accident.5 Officer Palermo executed an affidavit of arrest; and, in January 2019, Plaintiff was charged with several crimes related to his operation of the vehicle.6 In November 2020, “a nolle prosequi was entered on the said bill of information…”7

1 Rec. Doc. No. 5. 2 Rec. Doc. No. 10. 3 Rec. Doc. No. 12. 4 Officer Palermo is also named as a defendant but as not joined in the instant motion to dismiss. 5 Rec. Doc. No. 1-2, p. 3. 6 Id. at 4. 7 Id. Plaintiff asserts that Officer Palermo knowingly included false information in the affidavit of arrest, including that Plaintiff entered into a DWI checkpoint then turned around to exit the checkpoint and that Plaintiff smelled of marijuana.8 After the arrest, but before Officer Palermo executed the affidavit, a blood sample was taken from Plaintiff which tested negative for narcotics and alcohol.9 Plaintiff avers that Officer Palermo was aware

that the test was negative when he prepared the affidavit.10 Plaintiff asserts several causes of action: § 1983 actions for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, and Louisiana constitutional violations.11 II. LAW AND ANALYSIS LSU Defendants move to dismiss on several grounds, but the Court need only consider the first: LSU Defendants assert that they are not legal entities capable of being sued.12 Plaintiff agrees and requests leave to amend.13 La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(1) provides that the Board of Supervisors of LSU, as the post-

secondary management board for LSU and its related entities, has the capacity to sue and be sued. This Court has previously interpreted La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(1) to bar suit against LSU and the LSUPD as they lack capacity to be sued.14 Therefore, the instant Motion must be granted. III. CONCLUSION

8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 5. 12 Rec. Doc. No. 5-1, p. 6. 13 Rec. Doc. No. 10, p. 5–7. 14 Davis v. Louisiana State Univ. & A&M Coll., 2019 WL 179580, at *4 (M.D. La. Jan. 11, 2019). LSU Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss'® is granted, and LSU Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff will have 21 days from the date of this Ruling to cure the deficiencies in the Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 13, 2022.

CHIEF super Sicicy D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

18 Rec. Doc. No. 5.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-louisiana-state-university-and-agricultural-and-mechanical-lamd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack