United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
the Court is the Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
by Defendants Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health
System Management Services, LLC; Franciscan Health and
Wellness Services, Inc.; Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady
Health System Clinical Network, LLC; Franciscan Missionaries
of Our Lady Health System Holdings, Inc.; and Franciscan
Missionaries of Our Lady Heath System Management Services -
New Orleans East, LLC (collectively, "the Franciscan
Defendants"). The Franciscan Defendants seek an order
from this Court granting summary judgment in their favor on
Plainitff's claims, which relate to Plaintiffs
involuntary admission to Our Lady of the Lake Regional
Medical Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Specifically, the
Franciscan Defendants argue that they had no involvement in
the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs claims.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, failed to file
a timely memorandum in opposition to the Motion. For the
reasons explained herein, the Franciscan Defendants' Rule
56 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 36) is GRANTED.
the period between November 12 and December 5, 2014,
Plaintiff alleges that she was involuntarily hospitalized at
Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center
("OLOL") in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in violation of
multiple state and federal constitutional provisions and
various state and federal statutes. (Doc. 22 at
¶ 25). Plaintiff has filed suit against twenty-two
Defendants, seeking $425, 000, 000 in damages and nine
distinct forms of injunctive relief. (See Id. at pp.
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that "Our Lady of
the Lake Regional Medical Center, and/or the services it
renders, and/or [the] personnel it employs and/or sponsors,
either in part ... or in sum, fall under the helm" of
the Franciscan Defendants. (Id. at 1110). This is
the only mention of the Franciscan Defendants in the entirety
of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. (See id.). The
Franciscan Defendants, however, have no governing authority
over OLOL and had no involvement in the creation or
implementation of the policies and procedures related to the
care provided to Plaintiff during her involuntary
hospitalization at OLOL. The Franciscan Defendants provide no
direct care to medical patients and did not provide any
medical care to Plaintiff during the time in which she was
involuntarily hospitalized at OLOL, nor did the Franciscan
Defendants have any involvement with the execution of the
legal documents that resulted in Plaintiffs involuntary
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "A party asserting that a fact
cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion
by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the
record [-] including depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, [and] interrogatory answers" - or by
averring that an adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the presence of a genuine dispute.
a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the
adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quotation
marks and footnote omitted). When the non-movant fails to
file a memorandum in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment, a court may accept as undisputed the facts that the
movant submits in support of its motion. See Eversley v.
MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988).
summary judgment is appropriate if, "after adequate time
for discovery and upon motion, [the non-movant] 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." Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the
non-movant fails to file a memorandum in opposition to a
motion for summary judgment, a court may grant the motion if
the movant's "submittals ma[k]e a prima
facie showing of its entitlement to judgment."
Eversley, 843 F.2d at 174 (citing Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574
(1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. 242; Celotex,
411 U.S. 317).
Court finds that the facts submitted by the Franciscan
Defendants in support of their Motion make out a
"prima facie showing of [their] entitlement to
judgment" and that, given the lack of opposition by
Plaintiff, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on
Plaintiffs claims. Id. The Franciscan Defendants
have demonstrated that they had no involvement in any of the
circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs claims.
has not opposed the Motion, and Plaintiff therefore has not
put forth any facts to dispute the lack of involvement of the
Franciscan Defendants and, consequently, has failed to
"show that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. Therefore, the Court
finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.
Eversley, 843 F.2d at 174.