United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
HORNSBY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MAURICE HICKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant, Officer K.P. Anderson (“Officer
Anderson”). See Record Document 16. Officer
Anderson moved for summary judgment in his favor on the
grounds that all claims asserted against him in his
individual capacity are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey. Plaintiff Michael Tickner
(“Tickner”) has opposed the motion. See
Record Document 28. For the reasons set forth below, Officer
Anderson's Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED and all of Tickner's claims
against Officer Anderson in his individual capacity are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
incident forming the basis of this lawsuit occurred on
September 7, 2013 at the El Dorado Casino/Hotel in
Shreveport, Louisiana. See Record Document 16-1 at
¶ 1; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 1. Tickner and his
girlfriend, Jessica Renaud (“Renaud”), were
guests/patrons at the El Dorado Casino/Hotel. See
Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 2; Record Document 28-4 at
¶A 2. A dispute arose between Tickner and the El Dorado
Casino personnel. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶
3; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 3. Tickner and Renaud were
asked to vacate the El Dorado property. See Record
Document 16-1 at ¶ 4; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 4.
Three officers with the Shreveport Police Department,
including Officer Anderson, were asked to assist El Dorado
personnel in removing Tickner and Renaud from the property.
See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 5; Record
Document 28-4 at A¶ 5. Officer Anderson, the other two
officers, at least one El Dorado employee, Tickner, and
Renaud proceeded through the El Dorado Casino, up an
elevator, and down a hallway to Tickner's hotel room.
contested by Tickner, Officer Anderson alleges that he was
elbowed by Tickner when he was entering Tickner's hotel
room. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 6; Record
Document 28-4 at A¶ 6. According to Officer Anderson,
this resulted in him pushing/shoving Tickner forward. See
id. Officer Anderson then recalls Tickner falling to the
floor. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 7; Record
Document 28-4 at A¶ 7. According to Officer Anderson, he
struck Tickner approximately twice in the shoulder blade area
and then Tickner was handcuffed and placed under arrest for
battery of an officer. See Id. Tickner alleges that
Officer Anderson repeatedly struck him and violently attacked
him. See Record Document 28-4 at B¶¶ 4-6.
Tickner maintains that Officer Anderson's actions were
without notice, provocation, or justification. See
id. at B¶ 8.
to being taken to the Shreveport Police Department jail,
Tickner stated that he had consumed approximately six Jack
Daniels and Coke and had taken prescription pain medication.
See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 8; Record
Document 28-4 at A¶ 8. Tickner plead guilty to an
amended charge of resisting an officer in Shreveport City
Court on February 21, 2014. See Record Document 16-1
at ¶ 9; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 9.
filed the instant lawsuit on September 8, 2014. He alleges
violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in
this civil rights action. He also alleges parallel violations
of state law. As to the individual capacity claims against
Officer Anderson, Ticker maintains that he was subjected to
cruel and unusual punishment, unjust and unreasonable seizure
and detention, and excessive use of force. See
Record Document 1 at ¶ 32. In the instant motion,
Officer Anderson seeks dismissal of all Section 1983 claims
and state law claims against him in his individual capacity.
See Record Document 16.
Motion for Summary Judgment, Officer Anderson addressed
Tickner's false arrest claim, excess force claim, and
pendant state law claims. See Record Document 16. In
opposing Officer Anderson's motion, Tickner defended only
the excessive force and related state law claims.
See Record Document 28. Thus, the Court deems
Tickner's Section 1983 false arrest claim and any pendant
state law claim relating to false arrest abandoned. See
Black v. Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584, 588 n. 1 (5th
Cir.2006) (plaintiff abandoned retaliatory abandonment claim
when she failed to defend claim in response to motion to
dismiss); Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659,
678-679 (5th Cir.2001) (limitations defense not raised in
response to motion for summary judgment or supplemental
answer was abandoned); Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp.,
710 F.2d 1154, 1164 (5th Cir.1983) (party “in his
opposition to a motion for summary judgment cannot abandon an
issue and then . . . by drawing on the pleadings resurrect
the abandoned issue” and in response to motion for
summary judgment, plaintiff failed to address two theories
pleaded in complaint or mention “a single fact that
would trigger a genuine issue on these theories”).
LAW AND ANALYSIS.
Summary Judgment Standard.
judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure when “there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v.
Health Care Serv. Corp., 628 F.3d 725, 728 (5th
Cir.2010). “Rule 56[(a)] mandates the entry of summary
judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion,
against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to
establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Patrick v. Ridge,
394 F.3d 311, 315 (5th Cir.2004).
party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). If the moving
party fails to meet this initial burden, the motion must be
denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response. See
Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th
movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of
material fact, “the nonmovant must go beyond the
pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is
a genuine [dispute] for trial.” Gen. Universal
Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141 (5th Cir.2004).
Where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential
fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the
nonmovant, then summary judgment should be granted. See
Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th
Cir.2005). Where the parties dispute the facts, the Court
must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769 (2007). In
sum, the motion for summary judgment “should be granted