The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RAYMOND DURANT CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 19-147
THE CITY OF GRETNA et al. SECTION: “G”
ORDER
In this litigation, Plaintiff Raymond Durant (“Plaintiff”) brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and Louisiana law against the City of Gretna (“Gretna”), Gretna Chief of Police Arthur
Lawson (“Lawson”), and Officer Tramell Brooks.1 Pending before the Court is Lawson’s
“Motion for Summary Judgment.”2 In the Motion, Lawson argues that the Court should dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against him in his official capacity because the claims are duplicative of the
claims Plaintiff asserts against the City of Gretna.3 Specifically, in the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff brings (1) a vicarious liability claim against Gretna and Lawson in his official capacity
and (2) a Monell claim against Gretna and Lawson in his official capacity.4 Plaintiff does not
oppose the instant motion for summary judgment and “agrees that these claims are duplicative of
[Plaintiff’s] claims against the City of Gretna.”5
Claims against municipal officers in their official capacities are properly dismissed when
1 Rec. Doc. 1.
2 Rec. Doc. 100.
3 Rec. Doc. 100-1 at 2.
4 Rec. Doc. 66 at 8, 9.
5 Rec. Doc. 105.
“Tthose] allegations duplicate claims against the respective governmental entities themselves.”®
Here, the only claims Plaintiff asserts against Lawson are in his official capacity, claims which
Plaintiff also asserts against Gretna.’ Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against Lawson are duplicative
of his claims against Gretna. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lawson’s Motion for Summary Judgment® is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims brought by Plaintiff against Lawson in his
official capacity as Chief of the Gretna Police Department are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 2th day of August, 2021.
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
° Castro Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 355 (Sth Cir. 2001); see also Flores vy. Cameron Cnty., 92 F.3d
258, 261 (Sth Cir. 1988).
T See Rec. Doc. 66.
® Rec. Doc. 100.