Usea v. Manuel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KEITH USEA CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 19-14704

AARON MANUEL ET AL. SECTION: H(3)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are Defendants Aaron Manuel’s and Sheriff Craig

Webre’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 82) and Bill of Costs (Doc. 83). For

the following reasons, these Motions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of the arrest of a high school student suspected of

planning and threatening to commit a school shooting. At the time of his arrest,

February 20, 2018, Plaintiff Keith Usea was a senior at Thibodeaux High

School in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Defendant Aaron Manuel, a detective

with the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office, arrested Plaintiff for terrorizing and

simple assault in violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 14:40.1 and 14:38,

respectively. The criminal charges were eventually dismissed after a bench

trial, but not before Plaintiff spent two weeks in jail, months on house arrest,

and was unable to graduate from high school.

Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant action against Detective Manuel

and Craig Webre, sheriff of Lafourche Parish. Suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

Plaintiff alleged that Detective Manuel violated his Fourth Amendment rights

by arresting him without probable cause. More specifically, Plaintiff contended

that Detective Manuel’s affidavit contained a misstatement and several

omissions of material facts that vitiated probable cause. Plaintiff also brought

state law claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment against

Manuel individually and Sheriff Webre vicariously.

On July 7, 2022, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment and all Plaintiff’s claims against Detective Manuel and Sheriff Craig

Webre were dismissed with prejudice.1 The Court found that there were

sufficient facts to support probable cause, and that even if there were not,

Detective Manuel was entitled to qualified immunity.2 With respect to

Plaintiff’s claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, the Court

found that the existence of probable cause foreclosed both claims under

Louisiana law.3

Now before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees and

Costs under § 1988 and Rule 54(d). After this Court granted summary

judgment in its favor, Defendants moved for attorney’s fees and costs on the

ground that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous.4 Plaintiff opposes.5

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a court may, in its discretion, award

attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a § 1983 action. “A prevailing

defendant [in a § 1983 action] is entitled to fees only when a plaintiff’s

1 Doc. 80.

2 Id. at 11–12.

3 Id. at 12–13.

4 Docs. 82-1, 83-1.

5 Doc. 85.

underlying claim is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.”6 “[A] court must

ask whether the case is so lacking in arguable merit as to be groundless or

without foundation rather than whether the claim was ultimately successful.”7

“To determine whether a claim is frivolous or groundless, [the Fifth Circuit

has] stated that courts may examine factors such as: (1) whether the plaintiff

established a prima facie case; (2) whether the defendant offered to settle; and

(3) whether the court dismissed the case or held a full trial.”8 If a suit involves

both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, a court may grant reasonable fees to

the prevailing defendant only for costs that the defendant would not have

incurred but for the frivolous claims.9 Accordingly, a court must assess the

frivolity of each claim individually.10 Ultimately, the decision to award

attorney’s fees rests with the trial judge.11

Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), costs should

be awarded to the prevailing party in a lawsuit.12 Like attorney’s fees, “[a]n

award under this provision, however, is discretionary.”13

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Defendants argue that an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs is

appropriate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Rule 54(d) because Plaintiff’s

claims were frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless. Plaintiff opposes and

6 Myers v. City of W. Monroe, 211 F.3d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 2000).

7 Offord v. Parker, 456 F. App’x 472, 474 (5th Cir. 2012).

8 Doe v. Silsbee Indep. Sch. Dist., 440 F. App’x 421, 425 (5th Cir. 2011).

9 Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 836 (2011).

10 See Greco v. Velvet Cactus, LLC, No. 13-3514, 2014 WL 6684913, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 25,

2014).

11 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

12 FED. R. CIV. PRO. 54(d).

13 Davis v. Par. Of St. Tammany, No. 10-364, 2011 WL 121902, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 12, 2011)

(stating the plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous and using the Court’s discretion to deny the

defendants’ motion for taxation of costs and attorneys’ fees).

argues that while his claims were ultimately unsuccessful, they were not

frivolous. Although generally the frivolity of each claim must be examined

individually, since all claims in this case revolve around the allegedly faulty

affidavit and the existence of probable cause, the frivolity of Plaintiff’s claims

will be analyzed together.14

Plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous or unreasonable and this Court finds

that Defendants’ arguments are not persuasive enough to justify an award of

attorney’s fees and costs. Regarding the three factors identified above, Plaintiff

presented a colorable, albeit unsuccessful, prima facie argument. Plaintiff

reasonably believed that there were defects in the affidavit that could have

defeated probable cause, risen to the level of a Fourth Amendment Franks

violation, and supported claims of malicious prosecution and false

imprisonment.15 While this Court found that the affidavit was sufficient to

support probable cause even if there had been material misstatements and

therefore granted summary judgment for Defendants, Plaintiff’s claims were

not fully manufactured.16 The Defendants also state in their Motion for

Attorney’s Fees that a Motion to Dismiss would have been unsuccessful,

further indicating that the Complaint did present a meritorious prima facie

case.17

14 Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim was an alleged fourth amendment Franks violation for arresting

him pursuant to a warrant premised on an affidavit with material misstatements, which

Plaintiff argued vitiated probable cause. Malicious prosecution also requires the absence of

probable cause. Lemoine v. Wolfe, 167 So. 3d 362, 367 (La. 2015) (quoting Jones v. Soileau,

448 So. 2d 1268, 1271 (La. 1984)). Additionally, false imprisonment requires that there was

an unlawful detention. A detention is lawful if it was pursuant to a valid warrant based upon

probable cause. Barry v. Dennis, 633 So. 2d 806, 808 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994).

15 Doc. 85 at 1.

16 Doc. 80. See Greco, 2014 WL 6684913, at *2 (citing Stover v. Hattiesburg Pub. Sch. Dist.,

549 F.3d 985, 998 (5th Cir. 2008) (action not frivolous where the record contained some

plausible evidence supporting plaintiff's claims)).

17 Doc. 82-1 at 15.

Additionally, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. While

Defendants claim that they never “seriously entertained” a settlement, and

only “offer[ed] settlement by way of a ‘cost of defense,’”18 Plaintiff states that

Defendants made a monetary settlement offer, which Plaintiff declined.19

Offers to settle, while not the most important factor in the analysis, show that

a claim was not unreasonable or baseless.20

Finally, the fact that Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on summary

judgment does not require a finding that the claim was baseless.21 As the Fifth

Circuit has noted, “the careful consideration given to the case by the district

court is some indication that the suit was not frivolous.”22 Here, the Court

carefully considered the merits of the arguments in deciding to grant summary

judgment, further supporting the conclusion that this case was not frivolous.

Although Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed without a trial, litigation extended

more than two years and well into discovery practice.23 Accordingly, this Court

finds that Plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous, and Defendants’ Motion for

Attorney’s Fees and Costs must be denied.

18 Doc. 82-1 at 10–11.

19 Doc. 85 at 6.

20 Myers, 211 F.3d at 292 (stating that “whether a defendant offers to settle a case is of

questionable value in determining whether the plaintiff's claims are frivolous”).

21 Davis, WL 121902, at *3 (stating that “the fact that those claims were dismissed on

summary judgment instead of proceeding to trial on the merits does not necessitate” a finding

that the claims were frivolous in denying a motion for taxation of costs and attorneys’ fees).

22 Hawkins v. Coleman, No. 10-152, 2011 WL 3100562, at *2 (W.D. La. July, 25, 2011) (citing

Jones v. Texas Tech University, 656 F.2d 1137, 1146 (5th Cir. 1981) (stating that the district

court’s seventeen page decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants which

carefully considered the arguments for and against indicated that the lawsuit was taken

seriously and was not frivolous).

23 See Lewis v. Smith, No. 18-47776, 2019 WL 4521422, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 18, 2019)

(denying an award of attorney fees to a prevailing Defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that

was dismissed on a motion to dismiss, stating that “although Sheriff Smith prevailing on his

motion to dismiss, the Court cannot say that Lewis’s principal claims were wholly frivolous.”).

Moreover, even if Plaintiffs claims were to satisfy the three-part test for

frivolity, the Court exercises its discretion to not award fees.*‘ “[D]ifferent

equitable considerations [are] at stake” when a defendant prevails.» Awards

to prevailing defendants are intended to “insulate[] defendants from the

monetary strain of ‘burdensome litigation having no legal or factual basis.”

Plaintiff's claims against Defendants may have ultimately failed on a legal

basis, but they do not represent the type of factually groundless or vexatious

litigation Congress intended to discourage.?’ Given the importance of allowing

plaintiffs to initiate litigation without fear of burdensome legal fees if those

claims ultimately fail, this Court declines to award Defendants attorney’s fees

and costs.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions

for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 82) and Bill of Costs (Doc. 83) is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of October, 2022.

@,

s RICHE ML,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 42 U.S.C. § 1988 C[T]he court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ...a

reasonable attorney’s fee... .”) (emphasis added).

25 Cantu Servs., Inc. v. Frazier, 682 F. App’x 339, 342 (5th Cir. 2017) Gnternal quotations

omitted).

26 Id. (quoting Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 833 (2011)).

27 Bailey v. Normand, No. 12-2795, 2015 WL 1268325, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 19, 2015)

(declining to award fees relating to a frivolous claim for vicarious liability under § 1983 when

plaintiffs’ claim was grounded in facts).