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.

Guillory v. Parish

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

April 5, 2019

LIONEL GUILLORY
v.
JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH, ET AL.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KATHLEEN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Attorney Fees [doc. 23] filed by defendants and relating to the complaint filed by plaintiff Lionel Guillory. Guillory opposes the motion. Doc. 25. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court.

         I.

         Background

         This action arises from injuries allegedly inflicted on Guillory by Jefferson Davis Parish law enforcement officials, upon entry into his home in Welsh, Louisiana, on December 28, 2015. Doc. 1. Guillory asserts that the entry was made after his wife, Patricia, filed a domestic complaint against him with the Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff's Office (“JDPSD”). Id. at 3. He also maintains that Patricia told officers that he was armed with a pistol and a rifle, legally blind, and taking anti-depressants. Id.

         Guillory states that, upon the deputies' arrival, he barricaded himself in his home. Id. He agreed to speak with his sister-in-law, Lyndsey Hanks, if she would come inside the house but deputies declined this request. Id. at 3-4. Deputies then began planning to enter his home, and Deputy Derrick Miller approached the door. Id. at 4. Guillory states that he opened the door to speak peacefully with Miller, and that either Miller or Sheriff Ivy Woods then shot him in the shoulder with a bean bag round at point-blank range. Id. Deputies arrested Guillory and brought him to a local hospital, where he was treated for a clavicle injury. Id. He was then taken to the parish jail, where he began having seizures. Id. Instead of calling an ambulance, jail staff allegedly dragged Guillory across a concrete floor and then transported him to the hospital in a patrol unit. Id. Guillory was treated for his seizures and returned to jail. Id.

         Guillory filed a complaint in this court against the JDPSO, Deputy Miller, and Sheriff Ivy Woods. He raises a claim of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his clavicle injury and a claim of negligence under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315 based on his treatment at the jail, which he alleges aggravated the injury. Id. at 5-8. Defendants now move for summary judgment on the excessive force claim and Guillory opposes the motion. Docs. 23, 25.

         II.

         Summary Judgment Standard

         A court should grant a motion for summary judgment when the movant shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The party moving for summary judgment is initially responsible for identifying portions of pleadings and discovery that show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995). The court must deny the motion for summary judgment if the movant fails to meet this burden. Id.

         If the movant makes this showing, however, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (quotations omitted). This requires more than mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings. Instead, the nonmovant must submit “significant probative evidence” in support of his claim. State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990). “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 (citations omitted).

         A court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2110 (2000). The court is also required to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Clift v. Clift, 210 F.3d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2000). Under this standard, a genuine issue of material fact exists if a reasonable trier of fact could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 2008).

         III.

         A ...


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.