United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
CLARENCE D. LEWIS
JEFF LANDRY, ET AL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court, on referral from the district judge, is a Motion
To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Defendant
Attorney General Jeff Landry (“Landry”) [Rec.
Doc. 2]. Plaintiff Clarence Lewis filed an Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss. [Rec. Doc. 8] For the reasons provided
below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion be
GRANTED and that all claims against Landry
be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Clarence Lewis, filed the instant lawsuit in the
15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette,
against Attorney General Jeff Landry, District Attorney Keith
Stutes, Assistant District Attorney Michell Billeaud, and
Nancy Rogers. All parties that were properly served agreed to
removal of the state court proceeding from the
15th Judicial District Court to this
alleges that Landry “allows his district attorneys to
violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights through
malicious prosecution of false charges.” [Rec. Doc.
1-2.] He alleges that he has suffered the following: wrongful
death, false imprisonment, extortion, violation of his
4th, 5th, 6th,
8th and 14th Amendment rights.
Id. He also alleges that the inactions of Attorney
General Jeff Landry show a deliberate indifference towards
prison suits to correct the State Department's errors.
Law and Analysis
Standard of Review - Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6), the district court must limit
itself to the contents of the pleadings, including any
attachments and exhibits thereto. Collins v. Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th
Cir.2000); U.S. ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal
Hosp., 355 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir.2004). When reviewing
a motion to dismiss, a district court may also consider
“documents incorporated into the complaint by
reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial
notice.” Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631
F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir.2011), citing Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322
court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In re
Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205
(5th Cir.2007) (internal quotations omitted)
(quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid
Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.2004));
Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th
Cir.1996). However, conclusory allegations and unwarranted
deductions of fact are not accepted as true, Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, 677
F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing
Associated Builders, Inc. v. Alabama Power Company,
505 F.2d 97, 100 (5th Cir. 1974)); Collins v.
Morgan Stanley, 224 F.3d at 498. Courts “are not
bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Papasan
v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic, 127
U.S. at 570. The allegations must be sufficient “to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ”
and “the pleading must contain something more . . .
than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a
suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.”
Id. at 555 (quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-36 (3d
ed. 2004)). “While a complaint . . . does not need
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to
relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Id. (citations, quotation marks,
and brackets omitted; emphasis added). See also Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the plaintiff
fails to allege facts sufficient to “nudge[ ][his]
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [his]
complaint must be dismissed.” Bell Atlantic v.
Twombly, 127 U.S. at 570.
meets the test for facial plausibility “when the
plaintiff pleads the factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[D]etermining whether a
complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Id. at 679. Therefore, “[t]he complaint (1) on
its face (2) must contain enough factual matter (taken as
true) (3) to raise a reasonable hope or expectation (4) that
discovery will reveal relevant evidence of each element of a
claim.” Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565
F.3d 228, 257 (5th Cir.2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 U.S. at 556). See also In
Re Southern Scrap, 541 F.3d 584, 587 (5th
Cir.2008). With these precepts in mind, the Court considers
the Lewis' Complaint.
Plaintiff fails to state factual allegations to ...