United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
DAVID BARTLET LOWELL, ET AL.
JASON ARD, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
the Court are Defendants Derek J. Gaudin and Cory
Winburn's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
39) and Defendants Jason Ard and Perry Rushing's
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42). For
the reasons that follow, both motions for summary judgment
Saturday, January 7, 2017, Plaintiff was found asleep in the
men's restroom a Walmart Neighborhood Market in Denham
Springs around 2:00 A.M. Store personnel called law
enforcement, and Plaintiff alleges that when the Sheriffs
deputies arrived, officers forcibly removed him from the
store. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 7). Once removed from the store,
Plaintiff alleges that Deputies Derek J. Gaudin and Cory
Winburn questioned him, then suddenly attacked him.
(Id. at ¶8, 9). Plaintiff further alleges that
he was thrown to the ground and struck in the neck and upper
back. (Id. at ¶ 9, 11). Plaintiff asserts that
the attack was unprovoked and that he did not resist arrest.
(Id. at ¶ 10). After arresting Plaintiff,
Defendants transported him to the Livingston Parish Detention
Center, which Defendant Warden Perry Rushing supervised.
(Id. at ¶ 12). Plaintiff was booked and
detained. On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the
charge of Resisting an Officer under Louisiana Revised
Statute 14:108. Plaintiff was sentenced to one month in the
Livingston Parish Jail. Plaintiffs sentence was later
suspended, and he was given credit for the time served (Doc.
44 at pg. 6).
Plaintiffs Alleged Post-Arrest Injuries
his detention, Plaintiff alleges he complained of severe back
and neck pain. (Id. At ¶ 13). After an
examination by a health care provider at the detention
center, Plaintiff was transported to Lallie Kemp Regional
Medical Center, where X-rays and diagnostic testing revealed
a fracture of his C-6 vertebrae. (Id. at ¶ 14).
March 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Gaudin,
John Doe, Sheriff Jason Ard, and Warden Perry Rushing.
Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Winburn,
who was named "John Doe" in the initial complaint.
sued Gaudin and Winburn under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
excessive force, violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments, and state law claims of intentional
torts and negligence. Plaintiff sued Ard for vicarious
liability for the negligent hiring, training, and supervision
of Gaudin, Winburn, Rushing. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 21).
alleges that as a result of the alleged unprovoked attack, he
underwent medical treatment and continues to suffer pain,
mental anguish, aggravation, and the inconvenience of
restrictions in his activities. (Id. At ¶ 15).
Plaintiff asserts special damages such as medical expenses
and lost wages and asserts that he may continue to incur
medical expenses as a result of the incident. (Id.
at ¶ 16, 17). Plaintiffs wife joined the complaint to
assert damages of loss of consortium, society, companionship,
and services. (Id. at
Motions for Summary Judgment
and Winburn filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
39) asserting that Plaintiff resisted arrest, and
that Plaintiff pleaded guilty to and was convicted of
Resisting an Officer under La. R.S. 14:108. Although
Plaintiff claims that he never resisted arrest, Defendants
assert that Plaintiffs claims are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
Defendants Ard and Rushing also filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 42), arguing that the
vicarious liability claims against them must be dismissed due
to the absence of liability and the invocation of qualified
to Rule 56, "[t]he [C]ourt shall grant summary judgment
if 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(a). In determining
whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment, the Court
views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant
and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's
favor. Coleman v. Houston Independent School Dist,
113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997).
proper motion for summary judgment is made, the non-movant
must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine
issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). At this stage, the Court does not
evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or
resolve factual disputes. Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v.
Rally's, Inc.,939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991),
cert, denied, 502 U.S. 1059 (1992). However, if the evidence
in the record is such that a reasonable jury, drawing all
inferences in favor of the non-moving party, could ...