Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 00-2318.
March 13, 2001.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant's, City of New Orleans, motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs have filed this class action against the City of New Orleans, the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Department, and Orleans Parish Sheriff Charles Foti, in his individual and official capacity. Plaintiffs seek compensation for damages allegedly sustained as a result of their wrongful detention by the Orleans Parish Sheriff and for the Sheriff's addition of an allegedly illegal surcharge to the amount of their bonds to secure their release from a prison. The complaint alleges that these claims arise from practices of the sheriff's office that are actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As to the detention claims, plaintiffs. specifically allege the existence of a culture of "programmed incompetence" at the Orleans Parish prison, which included failing to answer phone calls, misplacing paperwork, abandoning work stations for indefinite periods of time, allowing employees to sleep on the job, a widespread tolerance of inaction and non-responsiveness to detainees' requests, refusing to bring prisoners before a magistrate within the prescribed period, and refusing to feed and/or medicate prisoners, but charging the City of New Orleans for those costs. As to the surcharge claims, plaintiffs allege that even though they were never convicted of a crime, the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff added a $15 processing fee to the amount of their bonds, which was paid directly to the sheriff's office. The City of New Orleans now moves to dismiss the claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Rule 12(b)(6)
In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996); American Waste Pollution Control Co. v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 949 F.2d 1384, 1386 (5th Cir. 1991). Dismissal is warranted if "it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994)).
B. Legal Standard for Liability under Section 1983
To establish liability against a local government entity under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate a policy or custom of the local government which caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036 (1978). Local government entities may also face liability under § 1983 as a result of a breach of a duty imposed by state or local law. See Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 767 (5th Cir. 1984); see also McMillan v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 781, 117 S.Ct. 1734 (1997). In situations in which a local government entity has a duty imposed by local or state law, liability under § 1983 may result if municipal officials have actual or constructive knowledge of the constitutional violations and fail to carry out their duty to correct them. See Bennett, 728 F.2d at 768. State law determines whether a particular governmental entity has an obligation or policymaking authority. See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123, 108 S.Ct. 915, 924 (1988) (plurality opinion); see also O'Quinn v. Manual, 773 F.2d 605, 608 (5th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations of unlawful detentions and surcharges relating to the management of the Orleans Parish prison. In Louisiana, sheriffs are the final policy makers with respect to the management of jails. See Jones v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, 4 F. Supp.2d 606, 613 (E.D. La. May 8, 1998). Under Louisiana law, the authority of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff is derived from the state Constitution, not from the City of New Orleans. See LA. CONST. art. 5 § 27. The sheriff's office, not the City, controls the inmates of the jail, the employees of the jail, and the daily management and operation of the jail. See La. R.S. § 33:1435; 15:704; O'Quinn v. Manuel, 773 F.2d 605, 609 ( quoting Amiss v. Dumas, 411 So.2d 1137, 1141 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 415 So.2d 940 (La. 1982)).
Under the statutory framework, the responsibility of the City of New Orleans' is to finance and physically maintain the jail. See Griffin v. Foti, 523 So.2d 935, 937 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1988); see also O'Quinn, 773 F.2d at 609. In Louisiana, the legislative scheme dictates that the City of New Orleans bears the obligation of satisfying the expenses of housing prisoners, while the sheriff has the duty of operating the facility. See Amiss, 411 So.2d at 1141. The City has no authority over the operations of the jail or the management of the sheriff's employees. See Jones, 4 F. Supp. 2d at 613; O'Quinn, 773 F.2d at 609 (administration of the jail is province of sheriff). In other words, the City's financial obligations do not constitute authority to control how the sheriff fulfills his duties. See O'Quinn, 773 F.2d at 613 ( citing Jenkins v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, 402 So.2d 669, 670 (La. 1981)). Thus, the City's responsibilities are limited to funding and maintaining the jail. See La. R.S. § 15:702.
Plaintiff s cite the O'Quinn case for the proposition that a municipality's liability is dependent on its knowledge, actual or constructive, of the alleged constitutional violations. See O'Quinn, 773 F.2d 605. What O'Quinn held, however, was that municipal liability "for insufficient funding or maintenance" depends on the city's knowledge of conditions. See O'Quinn, 773 F.2d at 609. Significantly, since O'Quinn did not allege that the jail was inadequately maintained or underfunded, much less that the police jury knew about it, the Fifth Circuit held that he had no claim against the police jury in connection with the beatings he received.
The same applies here. Plaintiffs have not alleged any breach of the City's duty to fund or maintain the jail. There are no claims that the jail was physically deficient or underfunded. Rather, plaintiffs' allegations focus on the acts and policies of the sheriff and his personnel in running the prison. Local governments cannot be liable under § 1983 for "the acts of those whom the local government has no authority to control." Jones, 4 F. Supp. 2d at 613 ( citing McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 781, 117 S.Ct. 1734 (1997)). Plaintiffs simply have not identified any duty that the City of New Orleans breached. Accordingly, the Court dismisses plaintiffs' claims against the City of New Orleans.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant's, City of New Orleans, motion to dismiss the claims against the City.