Harris v. Lovett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DWIGHT HARRIS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 18-857 JEAN LOVETT, ET AL. SECTION: “J”(1) ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rec. Doc. 72) filed by Defendants Deputy Marcus Borne, Deputy Mark Giammaria, Deputy Brittany Jenkins, and Deputy Chief Sue Ellen Monfra, officers with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims against them should be dismissed because his claims related to his arrest are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and they were not involved in the alleged denial of medical treatment while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center (“JPCC”). Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his October 1, 2017 arrest, during which he alleges he was severely beaten by several deputies, including Defendants Borne and Jenkins. Plaintiff was subsequently convicted of resisting arrest by force or violence. See LA. R.S. 14:108. Because “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction” and Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction has been reversed or otherwise invalidated, his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred by Heck. Connors v. Graves, 538 F.3d 373, 376 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This same rationale bars Plaintiff’s state law claims arising from his arrest. See Williams v. Harding, 2012-1595, p. 7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/26/13), 117 So. 3d 187, 191 . Defendant Monfra is the administrator of the JPCC. Plaintiff claims he was denied adequate medical treatment because he suffers from sleep apnea and has not received a CPAP machine. Nevertheless, Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim must be dismissed because he has not alleged that Monfra “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) Gnternal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 75) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana this 20th day of April, 2020. CARL J. B ER UNITED S ES DISTRICT JUDGE