Opinion
Civil Action 22-12-SDD-EWD
04-13-2022
CLARENCE WILLIAMS v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE, THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND OFFICER ANDREW PALERMO
RULING
SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants, Louisiana State University and A&M College (“LSU”) and the Louisiana State University Police Department (the “LSUPD”) (collectively “LSU Defendants”). Plaintiff, Clarence Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition to this Motion, to which LSU Defendants filed a Reply. For the reasons that follow, LSU Defendants' Motion is granted. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend.
Rec. Doc. No. 5.
Rec. Doc. No. 10.
Rec. Doc. No. 12.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges the following. In September 2018, LSUPD Officer Andrew Palermo (“Officer Palermo”), arrested Plaintiff for driving while intoxicated after Plaintiff was in a car accident. Officer Palermo executed an affidavit of arrest; and, in January 2019, Plaintiff was charged with several crimes related to his operation of the vehicle. In November 2020, “a nolle prosequi was entered on the said bill of information...”
Officer Palermo is also named as a defendant but as not joined in the instant motion to dismiss.
Rec. Doc. No. 1-2, p. 3.
Id. at 4.
Id.
Plaintiff asserts that Officer Palermo knowingly included false information in the affidavit of arrest, including that Plaintiff entered into a DWI checkpoint then turned around to exit the checkpoint and that Plaintiff smelled of marijuana. After the arrest, but before Officer Palermo executed the affidavit, a blood sample was taken from Plaintiff which tested negative for narcotics and alcohol. Plaintiff avers that Officer Palermo was aware that the test was negative when he prepared the affidavit.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Plaintiff asserts several causes of action: § 1983 actions for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, and Louisiana constitutional violations.
Id. at 5.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
LSU Defendants move to dismiss on several grounds, but the Court need only consider the first: LSU Defendants assert that they are not legal entities capable of being sued. Plaintiff agrees and requests leave to amend.
Rec. Doc. No. 5-1, p. 6.
Rec. Doc. No. 10, p. 5-7.
La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(1) provides that the Board of Supervisors of LSU, as the postsecondary management board for LSU and its related entities, has the capacity to sue and be sued. This Court has previously interpreted La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(1) to bar suit against LSU and the LSUPD as they lack capacity to be sued. Therefore, the instant Motion must be granted.
Davis v. Louisiana State Univ. & A&M Coll., 2019 WL 179580, at *4 (M.D. La. Jan. 11, 2019).
III. CONCLUSION
LSU Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted, and LSU Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff will have 21 days from the date of this Ruling to cure the deficiencies in the Complaint.
Rec. Doc. No. 5.
IT IS SO ORDERED.