United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
TAYLOR CARLISLE, ET AL.
NEWELL NORMAND, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Jefferson Parish
(Doc. 140). For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion
Court and parties are familiar with the facts of this case.
For a complete explanation see the Court's Order and
Reasons of October 31, 2017.
Second Amending and Supplementing Complaint (“Second
Amending Complaint”) asserts for the first time claims
against Defendant Jefferson Parish. Plaintiffs allege that Drug
Court is an entity of Jefferson Parish, and state that they
are asserting a Monell claim against the Parish for
employing a policy or custom of constitutional violations in
Drug Court procedures. Defendant Jefferson Parish now moves
to dismiss all claims against it on the grounds that
Jefferson Parish has nothing to do with Drug Court, which is
instead an entity of the 24th Judicial District Court.
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must
plead enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” A claim is “plausible on
its face” when the pleaded facts allow the court to
“[d]raw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.”A court must
accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and
must “draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff's favor.” The Court need not, however,
accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual
legally sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a
“sheer possibility” that the plaintiff's
claims are true. “A pleading that offers
‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.'” Rather, the complaint must contain enough
factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the
all Defendants, Plaintiffs generally allege that they were
deprived of various constitutional rights in their
interactions with Drug Court. Plaintiffs' specific
allegations against Defendant Jefferson Parish are as
a) Defendants Joe McNair and McNair & McNair, LLC
(“McNair Defendants”) provided services to Drug
Court pursuant to a contract with Jefferson
b) Drug Court is an entity of Jefferson Parish, and the
actions of the various Defendant officials represent a policy
or custom of the Parish to deprive Plaintiffs of
c) Drug Court was formed under Louisiana Revised Statutes
§ 13:5304 which gives parishes the power to ...