Gray v. La. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr.

1

KELLY GRAY, ET AL. v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 21-536-JWD-RLB

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

March 8, 2023

RULING AND ORDER

JOHN W. DEGRAVELLES JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 61) filed by defendants the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DPSC”) and Darrel Vannoy (collectively “Defendants”). ^[1]Plaintiffs, Kelly Gray and Michael Foley Individually and On Behalf of All Heirs-At-Law and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Shaquille Gray (“Gray”) Deceased and The Estate of Shaquille Gray (collectively “Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion. (Doc. 67.) Defendants have filed a reply. (Doc. 71.) Oral argument is not necessary. The Court has carefully considered the law the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. All of Plaintiffs' claims will be dismissed without prejudice, but Plaintiffs will be given leave to amend to cure the deficiencies outlined in this ruling.

I. Relevant Factual Background

Shaquille Gray was a diagnosed schizophrenic. (Sec. Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 7, Doc. 43.) On July 3, 2011, he was arrested and charged with robbery. (Id.) Before trial, “substantial litigation ensued involving Mr. Gray's competency to stand trial,” and, during that time, “he was diagnosed with psychological and/or mental illness.” (Id.) “Despite the Court and State's recommendation for Mr. Gray to serve his sentence at an intensive treatment facility (for mental health reasons), Mr. Gray was sent to the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, LA” (“LSP”). (Id.) Plaintiffs claim that prison officials knew of Gray's diagnosis yet placed him in the general population of inmates instead of a segregated psychiatric or medical ward. (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that, due to Defendants' misconduct, Gray was stabbed 20 times and murdered by fellow inmate Kenny Veal on September 1, 2020. (Id.) Veal was under the influence of drugs and armed with two knives- all of which were prohibited contraband. (Id.)

Plaintiffs (Gray's parents) brings this suit against the DPSC, Vannoy as the former warden of LSP, Attorney General Jeff Landry, and five unknown jail employees. (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.) Plaintiffs plead seven causes of action: (1) a § 1983 claim against all defendants for violating Gray's Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process and Eighth Amendment freedom against Cruel and Unusual Punishment; (2) a Monell claim against DPSC and Vannoy for improperly assigning those with mental illness to the general population, for failing to properly monitor and protect those with mental illness, and for failing to prevent dangerous contraband from entering the prison; (3) claims against DPSC and Vannoy for negligent training, supervision, and retention; (4) a § 1983 claim against Vannoy and the unknown employees for supervisor liability; (5) a § 1983 claim against all defendants for failure to intervene; (6) a state law negligence claim against the individually named defendants; and (7) a wrongful death and survival action against all defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 32-65.)

Defendants DPSC and Vannoy now move to dismiss the claims against them. (Doc. 61.) In sum, Defendants argue that (1) DPSC is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, or, alternatively, Plaintiffs have no claim against DPSC; (2) the official capacity claims against Vannoy should be dismissed to the same extent as the claims against DPSC; and (3) Vannoy is entitled to qualified immunity for the claims against him in his individual capacity. (Id.)

II. Relevant Standards

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Standard

In Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001), the Fifth Circuit explained the following about the Rule 12(b)(1) standard:

Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) . . . allow a party to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts. Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996).

The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction. McDaniel v. United States, 899 F.Supp. 305, 307 (E.D. Tex. 1995). Accordingly, the plaintiff constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist. Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1980).

When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits. Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). ...

In examining a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the district court is empowered to consider matters of fact which may be in dispute. Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981). Ultimately, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief. Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998).

Id. at 161.

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' ” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' ” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Federal pleading rules . . . do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.” Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 574 U.S. 10, 11 (2014) (citation omitted).

Interpreting Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Fifth Circuit has explained:

The complaint (1) on its face (2) must contain enough factual matter (taken as true) (3) to raise a reasonable hope or expectation (4) that discovery will reveal relevant evidence of each element of a claim. “Asking for [such] plausible grounds to infer [the element of a claim] does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal [that the elements of the claim existed].”

Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 257 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).

Later, in In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC., 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010), the Fifth Circuit explained:

To avoid dismissal [under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)], “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting [Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570]). To be plausible, the complaint's “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 .... In deciding whether the complaint states a valid claim for relief, we accept all well-pleaded facts as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. [Doe v. Myspace, 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008)] (citing [Hughes v. Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2001)]). We do not accept as true “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)); see also Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1940 (“While legal conclusions can provide the complaint's framework, they must be supported by factual allegations.”).

Id. at 210.

Applying the above case law, our brother in the Western District of Louisiana has stated:

Therefore, while the court is not to give the “assumption of truth” to conclusions, factual allegations remain so entitled. Once those factual allegations are identified, drawing on the court's judicial experience and common sense, the analysis is whether those facts, which need not be detailed or specific, allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)]; Twombly, 55[0] U.S. at 556 [.] This analysis is not substantively different from that set forth in Lormand, supra, nor does this jurisprudence foreclose the option that discovery must be undertaken in order to raise relevant information to support an element of the claim. The standard, under the specific language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), remains that the defendant be given adequate notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it is based. This standard is met by the “reasonable inference” the court must make that, with or without discovery, the facts set forth a plausible claim for relief under a particular theory of law provided that there is a “reasonable expectation” that “discovery will reveal relevant evidence of each element of the claim.” Lormand, 565 F.3d at 257; Twombly, 55[0] U.S. at 556 [.]

Diamond Servs. Corp. v. Oceanografia, S.A. De C.V., No. 10-00177, 2011 WL 938785, at *3 (W.D. La. Feb. 9, 2011) (citation omitted).

Afterward in Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc., 634 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2011), the...