Robinson v. Sheriff Daniel Edwards

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TRACIE ROBINSON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 22-3734

SHERIFF DANIEL EDWARDS, ET AL. SECTION: D (1)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by defendant,

Daniel Edwards, sued solely in his official capacity as the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff.1

Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda

in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior to the noticed submission date. The

instant Motion had a submission date of January 23, 2024.2 As of the date of this

Order and Reasons, no memorandum in opposition has been filed.

Accordingly, because this Motion for Summary Judgment is unopposed and,

importantly, because the Motion has merit, the Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s

claims against Sheriff Daniel Edwards are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights and wrongful death action concerning the death of Vincent

Robinson during his incarceration at Tangipahoa Parish Jail. On October 7, 2022,

Tracie Robinson, Vincent Robinson’s sister, filed a Complaint in this Court,

individually and as the administrator of the Estate of Vincent Robinson, against

Daniel Edwards, in his official capacity as the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff.3 Plaintiff

1 R. Doc. 15.

2 Id.

3 R. Doc. 1.

alleges that on October 6, 2021, employees of the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office

entered Vincent Robinson’s cell and accosted him, that he was denied timely medical

attention, and that he died as a result of his injuries.4 Plaintiff seems to allege that

Vincent Robinson was targeted because he was a homosexual male who later

identified as transgender and used the alias “Vanessa.”5 Plaintiff asserts claims

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and bystander liability, as well as claims

under Louisiana law for battery, wrongful death, and a survival action.6

On January 2, 2024, Sheriff Edwards filed the instant Motion for Summary

Judgment, asserting that all of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed as time-barred

and because there is no evidence to support her allegations.7 As of the date of this

Order and Reasons, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine disputed issue as

to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.8

A party moving for summary judgment must inform the Court of the basis for the

motion and identify those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to

4 R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 7-9. The Court notes that while Plaintiff alleges that these events occurred “On or

about October 6, 2022” (Id. at ¶ 7), this appears to be a typographical error. Plaintiff filed her

Complaint on October 7, 2022 and alleges elsewhere in the Complaint that, “Now a year after his

killing, Ms. Robinson has yet to learn the who and why that caused the death of her brother.” Id. at ¶

11. The Court therefore deduces that Plaintiff intended to assert that Vincent Robinson died on

October 6, 2021.

5 Id. at ¶ 7.

6 Id. at ¶¶ 21-38.

7 R. Doc. 15.

8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265

(1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-10, 91 L.Ed.2d 202

(1986).

interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that show that

there is no such genuine issue of material fact.9 If the moving party carries its burden

of proof under Rule 56, the opposing party must direct the Court’s attention to specific

evidence in the record which demonstrates that the non-moving party can satisfy a

reasonable jury that it is entitled to a verdict in its favor.10 This burden is not

satisfied by some metaphysical doubt as to alleged material facts, by unsworn and

unsubstantiated assertions, by conclusory allegations, or by a mere scintilla of

evidence.11 Rather, Rule 56 mandates that summary judgment be entered against a

party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element

essential to that party’s case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial.12 In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review the facts

and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the Court

may not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual

disputes.13

III. ANALYSIS

Because Plaintiff has not filed a response to the instant Motion, Sheriff

Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Facts14 are uncontested. According to the

undisputed facts before the Court, on October 1, 2021, while incarcerated at

Tangipahoa Parish Jail, Vincent Robinson met with Nurse Elizabeth Chandler

9 Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552.

10 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510.

11 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).

12 Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552.

13 International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991).

14 R. Doc. 15-1.

around 9:00 p.m. and expressed concerns about his housing assignment in the jail.15

After that meeting, Robinson remained in the booking area outside of the nurse’s

station for 20-30 minutes before he was escorted to a different cell for temporary

housing while awaiting a formal cell reassignment.16 Approximately an hour-and-a-

half later, around 11:18 p.m., Robinson was found unresponsive in his cell by

Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office Sergeant Percy Brown, who ran to medical and

returned with Nurse Chandler.17 Nurse Chandler examined Robinson, instructed

Sgt. Brown to call 911, and began performing CPR.18 The Amite Fire Department

EMS arrived on the scene at approximately 11:37 p.m. and Acadian Ambulance

arrived at approximately 11:55 p.m.19 At approximately 12:10 a.m. on October 4,

2021, the first responders had established a pulse and left to transport Robinson to

North Oaks Hospital.20 Robinson subsequently passed away at North Oaks Hospital

on October 6, 2021.21 The autopsy report shows no evidence of trauma, no evidence

15 Id. at ¶¶ 1-3. The Court notes that although Sheriff Edwards asserts that the sequence of events

leading up to Robinson’s death began on October 1, 2021 (Id. at ¶¶ 1-2), this seems to be a

typographical error. All of the exhibits submitted in support of the Motion indicate that the incident

occurred on the evening of October 3, 2021 and the early hours of October 4, 2021. See, R. Doc. 15-3

at ¶ 10 (“According to all available TPJ records, Vincent Robinson met with the jail nurse for

approximately 10-15 minutes at approximately 9:00 p.m. on October 3, 2023, at which time he

expressed concerns about his housing unit as reflected in the attached nurse’s notes.”); R. Doc. 15-4

(Nursing Progress Note dated 5:56 a.m. on “10/04/21”); R. Doc. 15-5 (Jail Incident Report with an

“Incident Date/Time” of “10/4/2021” at “01:47:28”); R. Doc. 15-6 (Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office

Dispatch Log showing call received on “10/03/21” at “23:38.23”).

16 R. Doc. 15-1 at ¶¶ 4-5.

17 Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.

18 Id. at ¶ 8.

19 Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.

20 Id. at ¶ 11.

21 Id. at ¶ 12.

of drugs or alcohol in Robinson’s system, and lists the cause of death as Covid-19

infection.22

The Court finds that while Plaintiff’s state law claims are time-barred, Sheriff

Edwards has failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §

1983 claims are time-barred. The Fifth Circuit has held that the statute of limitations

for § 1983 claims is “the forum state’s personal-injury limitations period,” which in

Louisiana is one year.23 The Fifth Circuit explained that, “In applying the forum

state’s statute of limitations, the federal court should also give effect to any applicable

tolling provisions.”24 According to the Fifth Circuit, federal law governs when a §

1983 claim accrues.25 “Under federal law, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff

knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.”26 Thus,

the statute of limitations begins to run “when the plaintiff is in possession of the

‘critical facts that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury . . . .’”27

Here, it is undisputed that Vincent Robinson died on October 6, 2021 and that

Plaintiff filed this suit on October 7, 2022.28 As such, Plaintiff’s state law claims for

battery, wrongful death, and survival action are prescribed under Louisiana law,

22 Id. at ¶ 13 (citing R. Doc. 15-7).

23 Smith v. Regional Transit Authority, 827 F.3d 412, 421 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Jacobsen v. Osborne,

133 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1998)). See, La. Civ. Code art. 3492 (“Delictual actions are subject to a

liberative prescription of one year.”). See also, King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754,

759 (5th Cir. 2015) (applying Texas’ two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions to §

1983 claims filed in Texas).

24 Smith, 827 F.3d at 421 (quoting Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 257 (5th Cir. 1993)) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

25 Smith, 827 F.3d at 421 (citing Jacobsen, 133 F.3d at 319).

26 Gartrell, 981 F.2d at 257.

27 Id. (quoting Lavellee v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129, 1130 (5th Cir. 1980)).

28 R. Doc. 1; R. Doc. 15-1.

specifically La. Civ. Code arts. 2315.1(A), 2315.2(B), and 3492, because this suit was

filed more than one year after Robinson’s death. Plaintiff has not asserted, nor is the

Court aware of, any basis for tolling Louisiana’s one-year statute of limitations on

these claims.

As to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for excessive force and bystander liability, there

is no evidence before the Court indicating when Plaintiff possessed the “critical facts”

that Vincent Robinson had died and “who has inflicted the injury.”29 The Court notes

that the autopsy report submitted by Sheriff Edwards shows October 6, 2021 as the

date of death and that the forensic examination took place on October 7, 2021.30

However, the pathologist, Dana Troxclair, M.D., did not electronically sign the

autopsy report until March 12, 2022.31 Additionally, the Toxicology Reports, the

results of which are included in the autopsy report, are dated October 26, 2021.32 It

is unclear when Plaintiff obtained a copy of the autopsy report, as it appears that the

report was issued to her counsel on April 27, 2022.33 Further, Plaintiff has alleged in

her Complaint that, “Now a year after his killing, Ms. Robinson has yet to learn the

who and why that caused the death of her brother.”34 Accordingly, reviewing the facts

and inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, as the

Court is bound to do,35 the Court finds that Sheriff Edwards has failed to show that

29 Smith, 827 F.3d at 421 (quoting Gartrell, 981 F.2d at 257).

30 R. Doc. 15-7 at p. 1.

31 Id. at pp. 1 & 5.

32 Id. at pp. 6-9.

33 Id. at pp. 1-5.

34 R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 11.

35 International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991).

he is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims on the basis that they

are time-barred.

Nonetheless, the Court further finds that Sheriff Edwards is entitled to

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims because there is no evidence before

the Court to support her allegations that Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office deputies

used force on Vincent Robinson before his death. The undisputed evidence before

the Court, contained in the autopsy report, shows that Vincent Robinson died of

natural causes, specifically a Covid-19 infection.36 The autopsy further states that

there was no evidence of trauma.37 Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any

evidence to show that she will be able to establish this essential element of her

claims at trial, nor has the Court found any such evidence which demonstrates that

Plaintiff would be able to satisfy a jury that she is entitled to a verdict in her

favor.38 Thus, even reviewing the facts and inferences in the light most

favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, the Court finds that Sheriff Edwards

has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary

Judgment39 is GRANTED and Tracie Robinson’s claims, brought individually and as

36 R. Doc. 15-7 at pp. 1-2.

37 Id. at p. 2.

38 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

39 R. Doc. 15.

the Administrator of the Estate of Vincent Robinson, are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, February 1, 2024.

WENDY B. tit

United States District Judge