Ramos v. Louisiana

506 F.Supp.3d 398

Raul-Alejandro RAMOS

v.State of LOUISIANA, et al.

CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 19-9802

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed December 9, 2020

Raul-Alejandro Ramos, New Orleans, LA, pro se.

Jacqueline B. Wilson, David Glen Sanders, Louisiana Department of Justice, James Garrison Evans, Louisiana Attorney General's Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Tommy Anderson, Jose Torres, Officer Rogers, Jr.

SECTION: "G" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, CHIEF JUDGE

Pending before this Court is a second "Motion to Dismiss" filed by Defendants Agent Supervisor Tommy Anderson ("Anderson"), Agent Officer Jose Torres ("Torres"), and Agent Officer Unk Rogers, Jr.’s ("Rogers") (collectively, "Defendants").¹ In this litigation, Plaintiff Raul-Alejandro Ramos ("Plaintiff") alleges that Defendants are liable for damages Plaintiff suffered due to his removal from the Supreme Court of Louisiana Law Library (the "Law Library") and from the Louisiana Supreme Court building.² Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.³ In the instant motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's action should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity.⁴ Plaintiff opposes the motion.⁵ Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges that on January 16, 2019, he went to the Louisiana Supreme Court Law Library to work on a separate case.⁶ Plaintiff asserts that he was entering the building in order to file a brief against Liberty Bank & Trust.⁷ Plaintiff alleges that he was stopped by Anderson and Torres who told Plaintiff that he could not enter certain sections of the Supreme Court building.⁸ Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were carrying out a "pre planned, pre determined, and deliberate act" when they stopped Plaintiff, in order to restrain Plaintiff from filing his brief with the Louisiana Supreme Court.⁹ Plaintiff claims that he objected to Anderson's demands.¹⁰ Plaintiff alleges that Anderson threatened Plaintiff with expulsion and arrest.¹¹ Plaintiff claims that, out of fear of arrest, he left the building.¹² Plaintiff alleges that after he was escorted out of the building by Torres and Rogers, he was informed that he was thereafter barred from the Supreme Court building and that, if he returned, he would be arrested.¹³ Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of being barred from the Supreme Court building and the Law Library, he was unable to properly research his other cases.¹⁴

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on April 25, 2019, originally bringing claims against the State of Louisiana, the Louisiana Supreme Court, Anderson, Torres, and Rogers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.¹⁵ On July 1, 2019, all of the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.¹⁶ The State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Supreme Court argued that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.¹⁷ Anderson, Torres, and Rogers argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity.¹⁸

On March 30, 2020, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in part and denied it in part.¹⁹ The Court dismissed without prejudice claims against the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Supreme Court under the Eleventh Amendment.²⁰ The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Anderson, Torres, and Rogers in their official capacities for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment.²¹

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint and to file a Rule 7(a)(7) reply responding to Anderson, Torres, and Rogers's defense of qualified immunity.²² Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff did not have a clearly established right to access a public library nor did Plaintiff have a clearly established right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before being removed or banned from a library.²³ Accordingly, Plaintiff had not carried his burden of alleging facts that would overcome the qualified immunity defense as to those claims.²⁴ Further, the Court found that Plaintiff had not alleged facts to show that Anderson, Torres, and Rogers’ conduct violated his constitutional right to access the courts.²⁵ While recognizing the existence of a general right of access to courts, the Court held that Plaintiff had not shown actual injury as a result of being denied access to the Louisiana Supreme Court.²⁶ Because Plaintiff's claim was a backward-looking claim, Plaintiff was required to provide facts identifying a nonfrivolous underlying claim that Plaintiff lost as a result of being denied access to the Louisiana Supreme Court.²⁷ The Court found that Plaintiff had failed to provide information on any underlying claims.²⁸

On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.²⁹ Plaintiff restates the facts alleged in his original complaint.³⁰ Plaintiff adds a new allegation that he was targeted by Anderson and Torres under a "pre planned, pre determined, and deliberate act" to bar Plaintiff from "getting into the Louisiana Supreme Court with [Plaintiff's] Application Brief against LIBERTY BANK & TRUST."³¹ Plaintiff alleges that he was stopped by Anderson and Torres not due to a complaint against him, but rather because of actions "going on behind the scenes relative to [Plaintiff] and [Plaintiff's] case against LIBERTY BANK N& [sic] TRUST."³²

On July 29, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.³³ On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition.³⁴ On September 15, 2020, with leave of Court, Defendants filed a reply.³⁵

II. Parties’ Arguments

A. Defendants’ Arguments in Support of the Motion to Dismiss

In the instant motion, Defendants maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity.³⁶ Defendants assert that the Amended Complaint added "few facts" to the "general allegations" contained in the original complaint.³⁷ Defendants argue that the Court "previously determined that Plaintiff's original complaint failed to overcome the qualified immunity" defense of Defendants and that the Amended Complaint "fails to cure the deficiencies noticed in the original complaint."³⁸

B. Plaintiff's Arguments in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss

In response, Plaintiff argues that "the Court has a procedure and process that requires that a trial on the merits move forward so as to allow a jury to bring judgment, settlement and peace to all claims made by Plaintiff claimant and Defendants parties in this matter."³⁹ Plaintiff further alleges that the case should proceed to trial because "the Court has denied Defendants previous Motion to Dismiss" and should now "deny Defense any attempt to delay the Court's Procedure and Process to meet that end."⁴⁰ Finally, Plaintiff asserts that "the Court requires a jury to settle all Plaintiff's Claims made in it's Court."⁴¹

C. Defendants’ Arguments in Further Support of the Motion to Dismiss

In reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff "fails to respond to the [Motion to Dismiss] in any meaningful way" and that Plaintiff's opposition "contains only conclusory statements that this matter should proceed to trial."⁴² Defendants assert that "Plaintiff has the burden of overcoming the defendants qualified immunity defense" and that Plaintiff has "failed to show that Defendants committed any constitutional violations and that their actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the law that was established at the time."⁴³ In conclusion, Defendants argue that "[s]imply put, Plaintiff has failed to tailor his reply to the assertion of qualified immunity, as required by the Court."⁴⁴

III. Legal Standard on a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that an action may be dismissed "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."⁴⁵ A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is "viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted."⁴⁶ "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ "⁴⁷ "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."⁴⁸ A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff has pleaded facts that allow the court to "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."⁴⁹

On a motion to dismiss, asserted claims are liberally construed in favor of the claimant, and all facts pleaded are taken as true.⁵⁰ Although required to accept all "well-pleaded facts" as true, a court is not required to accept legal conclusions as true.⁵¹ "[L]egal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, [but] they must be supported by factual allegations."⁵² Similarly, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements" will not suffice.⁵³ The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must offer more than mere labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action.⁵⁴ That is, the complaint must offer more than an "unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."⁵⁵ From the face of the complaint, there must be enough factual matter to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence as to each element of the asserted claims.⁵⁶ If factual allegations are insufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is an "insuperable" bar to relief, the claim must be dismissed.⁵⁷

IV. Analysis

A. Whether Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity

To plead a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff is required to allege facts demonstrating that: (1) the defendant violated the Constitution or federal law; and (2) the defendant was acting under the color of state law while doing so.⁵⁸

Government officials can defend against a Section 1983 claim by asserting qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified...