United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE.
the Court is the Rule 12 (b) (6) Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
(Doc. 37) filed by Defendants Dr. William "Beau"
Clark, East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner's Office, and the
City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge. Defendants
seek an order from this Court dismissing Plaintiffs claims,
which relate to Plaintiffs involuntary admission to Our Lady
of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. Specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has
failed to plead any facts to support a plausible claim
against the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge
and that Dr. William "Beau" Clark and the East
Baton Rouge Parish Coroner's Office are entitled to
immunity under state law. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro
se, failed to file a timely memorandum in opposition
to the Motion. For the reasons explained herein,
Defendants' Rule 12 (b) (6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. 37)
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. 14-18).
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that the
City of Baton Rouge/East Baton Rouge Parish Government is
legally responsible for ensuring the proper training of
personnel; the establishment of policies and procedures that
adhere to federal and state law, policy, and code concerning
its departments which, working in conjunction with hospitals
and/or healthcare facilities and/or mental health
institutions, operate under the color of law; and ensuring
that patient rights (outlined in hospitals and/or healthcare
facilities and/or mental health institutions documents, [the]
U.S. Constitution and [federal] law[s]/regulation[s], and
[the Louisiana] Constitution and [Louisiana]
law[s]/regulation[s]) are upheld and not violated.
(Id. at ¶ 17).
further states that the "City of Baton Rouge/East Baton
Rouge Parish Government failed in regard to [these]
responsibilities" and that "said failure violated
[Plaintiff]'s federal and state protected rights."
(Id. at ¶ 18). Plaintiff makes no further
allegations involving Defendant City of Baton Rouge/Parish of
East Baton Rouge ("City/Parish Government") in her
Amended Complaint. (See id.).
the East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner's Office ("EBRP
Corner's Office"), Plaintiff merely states in her
Amended Complaint that the EBRP Corner's Office "is
located in Baton Rouge, L[ousiaina]" and "is a
department of the EBR City/Parish Government, which is
"domiciled in Baton Rouge, L[ouisiana]."
(Id. at ¶ 15-16).
also alleges that she "was examined by Dr. William
"Beau" Clark, East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner, on
November 12, 2014." (Id., at ¶14). Dr.
William "Beau" Clark ("Dr. Clark")
allegedly issued a "Coroner's Emergency Certificate,
" which was "used by [OLOL] to continue to
involuntarily hospitalize [Plaintiff] contrary to law . . .
violating] multiple rights afforded to Plaintiff under both
the [United States] and Louisiana constitutions."
(Id. at ¶ 21). Plaintiff avers that
"Dr. Clark's actions violated multiple rights
afforded to [her] under both the [United States] and
Louisiana constitutions[, ] as well as law, " and that
the "Coroner's Emergency Certificate issued by Dr.
Clark was void given his inadherence to the applicable
provisions of Louisiana] Revised Statute[s] [section]
28:53." (Id. at ¶¶ 19-20).
motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint
against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8, which
requires "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Claims of immunity also may be raised
in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Brown v.
Miller, 519 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2008).
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."'
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). "Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief [is] a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense." Id. at 679.
"[F]acial plausibility" exists "when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678.
complaint need not set out "detailed factual
allegations, " but a complaint must contain something
more than '"labels and conclusions' or 'a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.'" Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555). When conducting its inquiry, the Court must
"accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view
those facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff." Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599
F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting True v.
Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2009)). "[T]he
tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
conclusions, " and therefore "[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice" to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
a "pro se complaint is to be construed
liberally with all well-pleaded allegations taken as true,
" a pro se plaintiff nevertheless must plead
sufficient factual matter that supports her claim to relief
in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Johnson v. Atkins,999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1993).
"Even a liberally construed pro se civil rights