Carlisle v. Normand

         SECTION: “H” (1)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JANE TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before 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 is GRANTED.

         BACKGROUND

         The 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.^[1]

         Plaintiffs Second Amending and Supplementing Complaint (“Second Amending Complaint”) asserts for the first time claims against Defendant Jefferson Parish.^[2] 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.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         To 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.”^[3] 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.”^[4]A court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and must “draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.”^[5] The Court need not, however, accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.^[6]

         To be legally sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the plaintiff's claims are true.^[7] “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'”^[8] Rather, the complaint must contain enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiffs' claim.^[9]

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         Against 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 follows:

a) Defendants Joe McNair and McNair & McNair, LLC (“McNair Defendants”) provided services to Drug Court pursuant to a contract with Jefferson Parish.^[10]

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 constitutional rights.^[11]

c) Drug Court was formed under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 13:5304 which gives parishes the power to ...