Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wells v. Richardson

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

April 2, 2019

KELVIN WELLS
v.
DEPUTY RICHARDSON, ET AL.

          NOTICE

          RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

         ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

         MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (R. Doc. 5). The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 7).

         I. Background

         On or about October 25, 2018, Kevin Wells (“Plaintiff” filed the instant action in the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, naming as defendants Deputy Richardson and Sheriff Gautreaux, III, of the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Department (collectively, “Defendants”). (R. Doc. 1-3). Plaintiff alleges that on September 2, 2017, Deputy Richardson “intentionally injured and denied immediate care” to Plaintiff and used “excessive and unnecessary force” during an arrest resulting in confinement at the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. (R. Doc. 1-3 at 1).[1] Plaintiff alleges that despite certain injuries on his shoulder and a resulting infection, he was not provided medical care for two days. (R. Doc. 1-3 at 1). In an apparent separate claim, Plaintiff alleges that the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office took “an hour and half to respond” to an automobile accident in which he was involved. (R. Doc. 1-3 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Gautreaux “failed to properly instruct, monitor, supervise, and warn [Deputy] Richardson of dangerous methods, behavior, and actions that injure Citizens. . . .” (R. Doc. 1-3 at 2).

         Plaintiff specifically alleges that “Defendants['] actions violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Laws of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions with Sid Gautreaux III having vicarious liability for his actions in [his] official and individual capacity and the actions of Officers Richardson and other subordinates.” (R. Doc. 1-3 at 2). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed “to act with the required degree of professionalism, competence, and commensurate care the law and Constitution demands.” (R. Doc. 1-3 at 2).

         On November 26, 2018, Defendants removed this action on the basis that there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (R. Doc. 1).

         On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand. (R. Doc. 5). While Plaintiff appears to assert that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction, he asserts, as in the Complaint, that his “state and federal” civil rights “have been violated” as a result “of malfeasance, unnecessary force, or malicious intent of Defendants. . . .” (R. Doc. 5 at 1). Plaintiff appears to argue that the action should be remanded to state court because the state court is competent to address the federal and state court claims raised in the Complaint. (R. Doc. 5-1 at 1-3). Plaintiff attaches a copy of a payment by the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding his treatment. (R. Doc. 5-2).

         In opposition, Defendants assert that under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the face of the Petition plainly raises a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (R. Doc. 7).

         II.

         Law ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.