United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
JEFFREY T. WHITE, Plaintiff
CHAD FUQUA, ET AL., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) filed by Defendant
Concordia Parish Sheriff's Department
(“CPSD”). CPSD maintains that it is not a legal
entity capable of being sued, and therefore, should be
dismissed from this lawsuit. Plaintiff Jeffrey T. White
(“White”) requested, and was granted, an
extension of time to oppose CPSD's motion. (Docs. 10,
13). White did not file an opposition.
as a matter of law, CPSD is not a “juridical
person” capable of being sued under La. Civ. C. art.
24, CPSD's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) should be GRANTED,
and White's claims against CPSD should be DISMISSED WITH
opening sentence of the Complaint, White asserted that he was
proceeding “by and through his attorneys.” (Doc.
1, p. 1). However, the attorneys White named never made an
appearance in the case, and did not sign the Complaint.
Current counsel for White - that is, different counsel from
the attorneys named in the Complaint - enrolled roughly four
months after White filed the Complaint. (Doc. 12). Thus,
White filed the Complaint pro se.
named a number of individuals and entities as Defendants,
including John Cowan as “Chief of the Concordia Parish
Sheriff's Department.” (Doc. 1, p. 17). White also
makes allegations against CPSD, as an entity, in his
“Introduction” and “Parties” sections
of the Complaint. (Id., pp. 1-2, 16). While naming
the purported Defendants, White stated: “Defendant City
of Vidalia (officer/paramedic) & Parish of Concordia
Sheriff's (officers), hereinafter ‘Defendant City
of Vidalia' is a Louisiana municipal corporation and is
the legal entity responsible for itself and for the Concordia
Parish Sheriff's Department.” (Id., p.
17). Construed liberally and broadly, as it must be, the
Complaint thus identifies CPSD as a Defendant.
has neither amended the Complaint nor otherwise dismissed its
claim against CPSD. Thus, CPSD remains a Defendant, along
with the City of Vidalia and John Cowan.
Law and Analysis
Standards governing the Motion to Dismiss.
may grant a motion to dismiss for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted” under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A pleading states a claim for relief
when, inter alia, it contains a “short and
plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
complaint will survive dismissal for failure to state a claim
if it contains ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d
207, 210 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009))
(internal citation and quotation omitted). “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.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A court must view all
well-pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie,
819 F.3d 170, 174 (5th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, a court may
dismiss a claim when it is clear that a plaintiff can prove
“‘no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.'” Kane Enterprises
v. MacGregor (USA) Inc., 322 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir.
2003) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46,
78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).
CPSD is not a “juridical person” capable of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b), as to parties which are neither
individuals nor corporations, “[c]apacity to sue or be
sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the
court is located.” Under Louisiana law, “[a]n
entity must qualify as a juridical person to have the
capacity to be sued.” Dejoie v. Medley, 41,
333 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/20/06, 4), 945 So.2d 968, 972.
“A juridical person is an entity to which the law
attributes personality, such as a ...