The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KUANTAY REEDER CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 22-4614
JASON WILLIAMS, SECTION: "A" (1)
in his official capacity as Orleans
Parish District Attorney
ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim (Rec. Doc. 6) filed by the defendant, Jason Williams, in his official capacity as
Orleans Parish District Attorney. The plaintiff, Kuantay Reeder, opposes the motion. The
motion, submitted for consideration on March 15, 2023, is before the Court on the briefs
without oral argument.1
In 1995, Mr. Kuantay Reeder, the plaintiff herein, was prosecuted by Orleans
Parish District Attorney Harry Connick, and convicted (non-unanimous jury) of second-
degree murder. The conviction was affirmed on appeal but Reeder continued to
challenge the validity of his conviction through post-conviction relief. In 2009, Reeder’s
1 Mr. Williams has requested oral argument but the Court is not persuaded that oral
argument would be helpful in light of the purely legal issues that are presented in his motion
to dismiss. Beyond his memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss, the Court granted
Mr. Williams leave to file a reply in excess of the page limits imposed by the Local Rules
and following the reply a thirteen page supplemental memorandum in support of his motion
to dismiss. Further, when the same motion to dismiss was considered by Judge Milazzo she
did grant oral argument and the Court has reviewed the transcript from that proceeding.
Therefore, oral argument would not contribute anything to the Court’s consideration of the
arguments being raised.
Page 1 of 6
post-conviction counsel discovered that the state’s key eye-witness had a prior
conviction and that the DA’s office had withheld that information from Reeder when he
was tried. Extensive litigation on this Brady2 issued ensued in the following years.
Jason Williams, the current district attorney for Orleans Parish, took office in 2021
and instituted a Civil Rights Division in his organization for the purpose of redressing
past harms and injustices that the DA’s office had caused. The staff set to identify cases
that involved State misconduct, particularly those involving wrongful convictions and
extreme sentences. (Rec. Doc. 1, Complaint ¶ 59). The Civil Rights Division reviewed
the prosecution’s original file in Reeder’s case, which revealed the existence of
“significant exculpatory evidence” that had never been disclosed to Reeder or his
counsel. (Id. ¶ 60). In June 2021, Williams, through the Civil Rights Division of his office,
produced the previously-withheld information to Reeder’s attorney. (Id.).
In August 2021, Reeder supplemented his application for post-conviction relief
with the newly-disclosed exculpatory evidence. In response, the Orleans Parish District
Attorney’s Office (hereinafter “OPDA”) filed stipulations acknowledging inter alia that
Reeder’s conviction and incarceration were in violation of the Constitution. (Id. ¶ 98). On
December 6, 2021, three remarkable things occurred: a state criminal judge vacated
Reeder’s conviction for second-degree murder, the OPDA immediately declined all
charges against Reeder, and Reeder walked out of Angola Penitentiary after being
incarcerated for over twenty-eight years. (Id. ¶ 100).
2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Page 2 of 6
Following his release, Reeder filed this civil action against Jason Williams, in his
official capacity only, seeking to hold the OPDA liable for the injuries and damages that
Reeder suffered for being unconstitutionally deprived of his freedom for more than half
of his life (Mr. Reeder was 50 years old when he filed this lawsuit). Williams is the only
defendant in the case. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action against Williams,
a Monell3 claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the OPDA violated
Reeder’s constitutional rights by withholding favorable evidence, that at all times
relevant the OPDA maintained an unconstitutional policy with respect to the obligation to
disclose favorable information to the defendants that it prosecuted, and that the OPDA
failed to properly train and supervise its prosecutors with respect to Brady obligations.
Although all of the tortious conduct alleged against the OPDA occurred well
before Williams took office, as the current district attorney, Williams, in his official
capacity, is the proper defendant.
Williams now moves to dismiss the complaint arguing that Reeder has not stated
a claim against him because the actions that form the basis of Reeder’s claims are
attributable to the State of Louisiana not to the OPDA as an independent local
government entity. The law is well-settled that the states and their officials are not
“persons” under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1989).
In Burge v. Parish of Tammany, the Fifth Circuit confirmed the already-existing
3 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Page 3 of 6
rule in this circuit that a Louisiana district attorney, sued in his official capacity, cannot
claim Eleventh Amendment immunity because he is not “an arm of the state.” 187 F.3d
452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Will, 491 U.S. at 70). The Fifth Circuit explained that a
Louisiana district attorney is the independent and final official policymaker for all of the
administrative and prosecutorial functions of his office Id. at 469. But even more
importantly, the Fifth Circuit held that in a suit against a district attorney in his official
capacity under § 1983 for constitutional torts caused by the district attorney’s policies
regarding the acquisition, security, and disclosure of Brady material, a victory for the
plaintiff imposes liability on the district attorney’s office as an independent local entity.
Id. at 470. For purposes of “official capacity” suits under § 1983, the district attorney’s
office resembles other local government entities. Id. Notably, the Fifth Circuit reached
these conclusions following a detailed study of Louisiana law, which is in accordance
with the analysis directed by the Supreme Court’s decision in McMillian v. Monroe
County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997).4
Williams disputes that Burge actually answers whether a Louisiana district
attorney acts on behalf of the State of Louisiana or on behalf of his office, which is an
independent local governmental entity, when he creates policies relating to the
disclosure of evidence in criminal prosecutions. But even assuming that Burge did
answer that question, Williams argues that Burge has been undermined by the Fifth
Circuit’s en banc decision in Daves v. Dallas County, 22 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022).
4 The McMillian decision provides the proper analysis in a § 1983 lawsuit for determining
whether an official was acting for a state or local government.
Page 4 of 6
Reeder argues that Burge controls and forecloses Williams’s argument that the
OPDA acted on behalf of the State of Louisiana with respect to the specific Brady-
policy-related allegations pleaded in this case. And Reeder argues that Daves did
nothing to call Burge into question because Daves is nothing more than an application
of McMillian to certain members of the judiciary under Texas law whereas Burge applies
the McMillian analysis to district attorneys under Louisiana law.
At least two other plaintiffs who have had their convictions under the OPDA
vacated for Brady violations like those alleged in this case have filed lawsuits against
Williams in this district. JD Floyd v. John Dillmann, et al. (19-8769) is pending before
Judge Milazzo, and Kaliegh Smith v. Jason Williams (22-1550) is pending before Chief
Judge Brown. Williams filed in both of those cases motions to dismiss that presented
issues identical to the issues currently before the Court. Both Judge Milazzo and Chief
Judge Brown concluded that Burge controlled, and was not called into question by
Daves, which dealt with Texas judges, not a Louisiana district attorney. (CA19-8769
Rec. Doc. 219); (CA22-1550 Rec. Doc. 18). Chief Judge Brown went further, conducting
a de novo analysis pursuant to McMillian’s dictates and concluding, consistent with
Burge, that a Louisiana district attorney does not act on behalf of the State of Louisiana
when developing policies governing Brady obligations for his office.
This Court agrees with the sound and thorough reasoning of both Chief Judge
Brown and Judge Milazzo. Burge does control and Burge remains good and binding law
following Daves. Given that Daves dealt with the role of judges under Texas law, no
legitimate argument can be made that the en banc Daves decision overruled Burge. In
Page 5 of 6
fact, in a recent unreported decision, the Fifth Circuit cited Burge for the proposition that
for purposes of a § 1983 official capacity suit, the district attorney's office (Jefferson
Parish) resembles other focal government entities. Kimble v. Jefferson Par. Sheriff's
Office, No. 22-30078, 2022 WL 1793876, at *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 7, 2023) (per curiam).
Williams’s motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rec.
Doc. 6) filed by the defendant, Jason Williams, in his official capacity as Orleans Parish
District Attorney, is DENIED.
April 4, 2023 C C t
2 A
Lh CRAIN or JUDGE
Page 6 of 6