United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
HORNSBY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case, Jonathan Koury ("Plaintiff") filed suit
against Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc. ("Walgreens"),
the City of Bossier, Shane McWilliams, and Kevin Wooten
(" Detective Wooten") for violations of Title 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and malicious prosecution. Now pending
before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim upon Which Relief can be Granted, filed by
Walgreens pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). [Record Documents 11 & 23]. Plaintiff opposes
both motions. [Record Documents 20 & 27]. For the reasons
discussed below, Walgreens' first motion to dismiss
[Record Document 11] is hereby GRANTED.
Walgreens' second motion to dismiss [Record Document 23]
is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's
claims against Walgreens are hereby DISMISSED WITH
previous ruling, this Court dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Walgreens. Record
Document 22, pp. 1-2. The Court also found that neither
Walgreens' first motion to dismiss nor Plaintiff's
opposition addressed the merits of the malicious prosecution
claim. Id. at 1. The Court stated that it was
inclined to dismiss this claim but allowed Plaintiff an
opportunity to provide the Court with reasons why his
malicious prosecution claims against Walgreens should not be
dismissed sua sponte. Id. at 10; See Century
Sur. Co. v. Blevins, 799 F.3d 366, 372 (5th Cir. 2015)
(holding that a district court may dismiss a claim sua
sponte \f the procedure used is fair, and that fairness
requires notice of the court's intention to dismiss and
an opportunity to respond). Plaintiff responded to the
Court's ruling with a supplemental memorandum containing
reasons why his malicious prosecution claim should not be
dismissed. Record Document 25. Walgreens filed a second
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) that focused on
Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim, presumably also
in response to the Court's ruling. Record Document 23.
Plaintiff opposes this motion. Record Document 27.
January 11, 2017, Plaintiff entered a Walgreens store located
in Bossier City, Louisiana. Record Document 1, ¶ 5. Once
inside, Plaintiff picked up a twelve-pack of Bud Light,
proceeded to the pharmacy area, and placed the beer on the
pharmacy counter. Id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff claims
that he told the pharmacist he needed to "get
this," in reference to the beer and his prescription,
and handed over his driver's license and his credit/debit
card. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff also alleges that
the price of his medication normally fluctuated between forty
and sixty dollars a month and that he believed he had
purchased the beer at the same time he purchased the
medication. Id. at ¶s 7-8. However, Plaintiff
purchased only his medication and then exited the store with
the beer. Id. at ¶ 9. Walgreens contacted law
enforcement and on or about January 13, 2017, Detective
Wooten of the Bossier City Police Department came to
Walgreens, viewed surveillance footage of the incident, and
spoke with Walgreens employees. Id. at ¶ 10.
visiting the store, Detective Wooten attempted to locate
Plaintiff at Plaintiff's grandmother's residence and
left his contact information there. Id. at ¶
12. On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff contacted Detective Wooten
and went voluntarily to the Bossier City Police Department.
Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff claims that he was then
arrested, despite explaining that he thought he had purchased
the beer and offering to pay for it, because Walgreens wanted
him to be arrested. Id. at ¶ 15.
claims that he suffered emotional distress over this incident
due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and that the
incident damaged his marriage and other aspects of his life.
Id. at ¶s 15 & 19. Eight months after his
arrest, Plaintiff was found not guilty of shoplifting.
Id. at ¶ 20. On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff
filed the present action against Walgreens, the City of
Bossier, Shane McWilliams in his official capacity as Chief
of Police for the City of Bossier, and Detective Wooten,
individually and in his official capacity as a detective for
the City of Bossier Police Department. Record Document 1.
alleges that all Defendants violated his right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures, false arrests, and
excessive force by police officers, as well as his right not
to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Id. at
¶s 24 & 32. Plaintiff also alleges that all
Defendants are liable to him for the Louisiana state law tort
of malicious prosecution. Id. at ¶ 44. At issue
in this ruling is Plaintiff's only remaining claim
against Walgreens, that of malicious prosecution.
Standard of Review
order to survive a motion to dismiss brought under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must
"state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). "A claim has facial plausibility 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 663.
"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice." Id. at 678. The court must accept as
true all of the factual allegations in the complaint in
determining whether plaintiff has stated a plausible claim.
See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495
F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). However, a court is "not
bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation." Papasan v. Main, 478 U.S.
265, 286 (1986).