Lawrence v. East Baton Rouge Parish Prison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TERRY M. LAWRENCE, JR. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS SID GEAUTREAUX, ET AL. NO. 19-00206-BAJ-RLB RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Morgan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72). The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 73; Doc. 77). Defendant filed a Reply. (Doc. 76). The Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 84), recommending that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and refer this matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Ud. atp. 7). Plaintiff and Defendant object to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 86; Doc. 88). After carefully considering the parties’ objections, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and denies Defendant’s Motion. Defendant argues that the Court relied on improper summary judgment evidence by considering Plaintiffs untimely Sur-Reply, filed without leave of Court. (Doc. 88, p. 4). Defendant argues that the Court should disregard Plaintiffs Sur-Reply. (d.). A review of the Report indicates that Plaintiffs arguments in his Sur-Reply had no bearing on the outcome here. Rather, the Magistrate Judge found, based on Plaintiffs Complaint, that the Court could not conclude as a matter of law that Defendant acted in an objectively reasonable manner that would entitle him to qualified immunity. (Doc. 84, p. 6). The Magistrate Judge did not rely on “improper summary judgment evidence” by considering Plaintiffs Complaint.! Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that “the resolution of whether excessive force was used requires a credibility determination that the Court cannot make when evaluating a Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Id.). Plaintiffs Objection, which seeks to clarify that under the “Grievance File,” the surveillance was “asked to be saved as evidence in this grievance matter in order to present to this Court,” does not compel a different result. (Doc. 86). Having carefully considered the underlying Complaint, the Motion at issue, and related filings, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion herein. Accordingly, 1 Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs self-serving allegations in his Complaint are insufficient to contradict Defendant's “plentiful contrary evidence,” including two Affidavits. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cireuit, however, has held that “Jo]n summary judgment, factual allegations set forth in a verified complaint may be treated the same as when they are contained in an affidavit.” Hart v. Hairston, 348 F.3d 762 , 765 (5th Cir, 2003) (citing Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.8d 233, 240 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1998); King v. Dogan, 31 F.8d 344, 346 (th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1746 ). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit “has considered a prisoner's verified or sworn pleadings to be competent summary judgment evidence.” Higgins v. Morris, 673 F. App'x 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Falcon v. Holly, 480 Fed.Appx. 825, 326 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (“[A] verified complaint and other verified pleadings serve as competent summary judgment evidence.”); King, 31 F.3d at 346 (noting that a complaint verified as true and correct under penalty of perjury could constitute competent summary judgment evidence)). And while Plaintiff specifically referred to his Complaint in his Sur-Reply and did not cite his Complaint in his initial Reply, the Court is entitled to consider Plaintiffs Complaint, which has been in the record since the inception of this matter. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Morgan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. ok Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of January, 2022 . ij A R: od JUDGE BRIAN Af JACKSON UNITED STATES D RICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA