The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ELISE LAMARTINA CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 21-1030
CITY OF MANDEVILLE, ET AL. SECTION “L” (4)
**************************************************************************
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). R. Doc.
37. Plaintiff Elise LaMartina (“LaMartina”) opposes the motion. R. Doc. 38. After a review
of the record, briefing, and applicable law, the Court now rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
This cases arises out of alleged violations of Section 1983 by various Mandeville police
and public officials against Elise LaMartina stemming from two police stops and the
subsequent attempts by LaMartina to contest them. Because of the various named Defendants
and lengthy history, a background of the underlying dispute is in order.
a. The May 2, 2020 Stop
LaMartina alleges that on May 2, 2020, Defendant Stephen Baehr, an officer of the
Mandeville Police Department (“MPD”), detained her in an unlawful traffic stop. R. Doc. 1 at
3. She alleges that, while she was driving to and nearly approaching her mother’s house, Officer
Baehr activated his vehicle’s lights to stop her, and she promptly turned off the highway, into
her mother’s driveway. Id. LaMartina avers that “Defendant Baehr, aggressively and with his
police revolver in-hand, stormed onto and across [her mother’s] private property, violently
approaching [LaMartina] as she opened her car door.” Id. She alleges that Officer Baehr stated
that he stopped her because her car had no license plate. Id. at 4. According to LaMartina, her
license plate had partially shifted out of view, and she says she explained this to the officer. Id.
LaMartina asserts that, despite this apology and explanation, Officer Baehr “continued to
harass, intimidate, and unlawfully detain” her. Id.
Soon after, four additional MPD officers allegedly came to her mother’s property to also
“harass, intimidate, and unlawfully detain” her. Id. LaMartina avers that these officers claimed
to be investigating her for theft of the car she had been driving. Id. at 5. She describes she had
been driving a vehicle owned by Timothy Howell and that she called Mr. Howell on the phone
during the stop and that Mr. Howell “asked to speak to the officers to resolve their ‘confusion’
and confirm that his car was not stolen.” Id. One officer allegedly refused to speak to Mr.
Howell, while the remaining officers “continued to scurry about [Plaintiff’s mother’s] private
property hoping to discover ‘evidence’ of other infractions and/or other potential crimes with
which [Plaintiff] could be charged.” Id. LaMartina alleges that, after some time, Officer Baehr
spoke with Mr. Howell and subsequently cited Plaintiff for failing to display a license plate. Id.
at 6. At this point, Plaintiff avers, all officers left the property. Id. Plaintiff asserts that the entire
incident occurred “at least a mile outside of Mandeville’s city limits, and clearly outside MPD
jurisdiction.” Id. at 4.
LaMartina claims that along with the citation, she was issued a summons to appear
before Mandeville Mayor’s Court on July 13, 20201 at Mandeville City Hall. Id. at 6. She says
she returned to Florida with the intention of coming back to Mandeville to appear per this
summons, but by that summer both states had shelter-in-place policies restricting travel and
closing various public spaces, including Mandeville City Hall. Id. She alleges that she called
the Clerk’s office to find out whether her July 13, 2020 hearing would still move forward but
1 The complaint says “July 13, 2021” but this appears to be a typo because all other surrounding dates are in 2020.
that they told her “they ‘didn’t know’ whether court would be held, but that ‘City Hall was
closed.’” Id. She claims she was told there were no remote hearings or trials and the only
remote service was to pay the fine, which she was attempting to contest. Id. LaMartina claims
that she continued to reach the court to find out whether her proceeding would occur and heard
nothing. Id.
b. The September 29, 2020 Stop and Arrest
Later that year, LaMartina and her son drove to Louisiana and on September 29, 2020,
they pulled into a Mandeville gas station where within minutes they were approached by
Defendant Benjamin Cato of MPD. Id. at 7. LaMartina alleges that he lacked probable cause to
stop or detain them, asked for their license and registration, and then a few minutes later Cato
arrested LaMartina. Id. She alleges that he was physically abusive, grabbing her “arm and body
and causing her great physical pain.” Id. She claims that her son filmed “Defendant Cato’s
violent outburst hoping the Defendant would notice and stop brutalizing his mother.” Id. at 8.
Cato allegedly grabbed her son and handcuffed him and other officers then arrived to transport
them in separate vehicles to the Mandeville police station. Id. LaMartina says she was
eventually told that she was arrested pursuant to an outstanding warrant for her failure to appear
at the closed Mandeville City Hall for the arraignment related to the Stephen Baehr incident on
May 2, 2020. She was released with an arraignment date of January 11, 2021. Id.
c. The Events of January 11, 2021 through April 16, 2021
LaMartina goes on to allege various offenses by Mandeville police and public officials
related to these arrests and her subsequent efforts to contest them. She claims that Cato said he
thought her son was Timothy Howell and that this “good faith mistake” is why he arrested him
with LaMartina, which LaMartina characterizes as “smug” and indicative of “just enough MPD
training to know that there exists a ‘good faith exception’ to false arrests and imprisonment
claims.” Id. at 9. When she returned to Mandeville the following January, LaMartina alleges
that “Magistrate Rachel Catalanotto, working in tandem with City Prosecutor, Defendant
Bernard Plaia, offered to dismiss ‘the second charge’ if Elise pled guilty and paid a fine”
relating to the license plate charge. Id. She claims this shows Mandeville’s “policing-for-profit
scheme” and that no one ever told her about a “second charge.” Id. at 9-10.
She claims that she was cautioned against trial, encouraged to plead and pay, and that
when she moved for discovery to prepare her own defense she was denied materials requested.
Id. at 10. Further, she alleges that Defendant Plaia told Defendant Brant, the Mandeville City
Clerk, not to provide anything to LaMartina without his permission and that on February 2,
2021, Brant “provided incomplete and/or ‘doctored’ responses” to LaMartina’s requests, such
as “a blank DVD allegedly containing video captured by body-cams and an unsigned, falsified,
police report allegedly written by Defendant Baehr.” Id. at 11. She claims continued obstruction
to her access to various materials, specifically describing a saga to view the body-cam footage
that at various times the Magistrate and/or City Prosecutor Plaia had conceded she was entitled
to view. Id. at 11-15. She also describes how she contested that court’s jurisdiction and their
refusal to apply Louisiana Rules of Civil Procedure to her case. Id. at 14-15.
LaMartina states in her complaint that by this point she fully expects to be found guilty
of the license plate charge as well as this unknown “second charge” which she says “remains
unknown because neither public records nor discovery have been provided and Defendants
Plaia and Brant, as well as the Magistrate, refuse to identify this charge, produce a bill of
information, or identify any party named as an Unknown Defendant.” Id. at 15.
d. Procedural History and the Present Federal Suit
LaMartina brings claims against the following individuals and entities as Defendants:
Mandeville Police Department Officers Gerald Sticker, Steven Baehr, and Benjamin Cato;
Prosecutor Bernard Plaia; City Clerk Tammy Brant; City Attorney David Parnell; Mayor Clay
Madden; the City of Mandeville; and the law firm Blue Williams, LLC. Id. at 2. Plaintiff
initially filed her pro se complaint on April 30, 2021 in the Middle District of Florida; however,
the case was transferred to this district on May 28, 2021 after a finding that venue was improper
in the Middle District of Florida because the alleged events took place in this district. R. Docs.
1, 10. She asserts four categories of claims: (1) 4th and 14th Amendment claims and a § 1983
claim relating to the May 2, 2020 stop; (2) 4th and 14th Amendment claims and a § 1983 claim
relating to the September 29, 2020 stop and arrest; (3) claims relating to the events between
January 11, 2021 and April 16, 2021, including 5th and 14th Amendment claims as well as
claims for “criminal misconduct including, without limit, fraud, harassment, intimidation,
extortion, abuse of power, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, [and] negligent and/or
intentional infliction of emotional distress;” and (4) “additional claims” such as that the
Mandeville Police Chief and the Mandeville City maintained policies that were officially
adopted and promulgated which violated her constitutional rights and negligent
hiring/supervision claims. R. Doc. 1 at 17-22. She seeks damages for the violation of her rights
under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, as well as pain and suffering, mental anguish,
emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of life’s enjoyment, and punitive damages. Id. at 23.
Instead of filing an Answer, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim. R. Doc. 21. Defendants argued that each of the police officers named is subject to
qualified immunity; that the other public officials named are subject to prosecutorial, judicial,
absolute, or qualified immunity; that LaMartina failed to raise any allegations against Blue
Williams; and that she failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted as to all
defendants, such that all of LaMartina’s claims should be dismissed at her cost. R. Doc. 21-1 at
2. This Court then ordered supplemental briefing on the status of the underlying state court
proceedings, ordering the parties to file this briefing by April 22, 2022. R. Doc. 26. Because
those underlying matters were at that time ongoing and, citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
447, 484 (1994), this Court stayed this matter until October 22, 2022, after which the parties
could submit supplemental briefing informing the Court of the outcome of those underlying
state proceedings. R. Doc. 29.
On February 1, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to lift the stay, informing the Court that
the underlying proceedings have since resolved and this matter can move ahead. R. Doc. 35.
Defendants describe that LaMartina appeared before Judge Martin E. Coady for a trial where
she was prosecuted for the following violations: (1) drive/operate a vehicle in such an unsafe
condition as to endanger any person/property; (2)simple flight from an officer; (3) failure to
give notice of change of address within 10 days; and (4) failure to register vehicle in time
allowed, all stemming form the May 2, 2020 stop. R. Doc. 35-1 at 2. They state that Judge
Coady found her not guilty of simple flight from an officer but guilty of the other three charges.
Id. She was sentenced to pay a fine or spend three days in jail and she was ordered to appear on
or before December 19, 2023 to pay costs and fines. Id. at 2-3. However, Defendants claim she
failed to appear and there is presently an outstanding arrest warrant related to this failure. Id.
Because the underlying proceedings had final dispositions, and there was no filed opposition to
Defendants’ motion to lift stay in this matter, this Court lifted the stay on February 29, 2024
and Defendants re-urged their Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on April 24, 2024.
R. Docs. 36, 37.
II. PRESENT MOTION
Defendants filed the instant motion urging the Court to dismiss LaMartina’s complaint.
R. Doc. 37. They argue much of the same as they did in their first 12(b)(6) motion: that the
police officers are entitled to qualified immunity; that the public officials like Plaia, Brant, and
Parnell are entitled to prosecutorial, absolute, judicial, and/or qualified immunity; that no facts
at all were pled as to Blue Williams LLC; and that LaMartina has failed to set forth claims for
constitutional violations. Id. They also argue that Heck v. Humphrey precludes this suit,
pointing out that LaMartina was convicted of three of the four counts brought against her by St.
Tammany Parish in November 2023. R. Doc. 37-1 at 14-15. Defendants argue that the time for
filing an appeal has since run without any action by LaMartina and therefore Heck requires a
dismissal of her complaint as a matter of law. Id.
In opposition, LaMartina argues that the minute entry from the trial states the date of her
underlying offenses for those convictions as May 2, 2021, exactly one year after this stop, and
therefore Heck cannot apply to his federal suit which deals with alleged violations that occurred
on May 2, 2020. R. Doc. 38 at 4-5; Minute Entry, R. Doc. 38-1. She calls attention to the
timeline of these charges across various courts, from Mandeville Mayor’s Court to St.
Tammany Parish, to argue that this entire saga was manufactured to create a Heck problem.
Specifically, she notes that Defendants’ first motion to dismiss in this case, R. Doc. 21, was
filed on December 9, 2021, the day before St. Tammany brought these four charges against her,
and that in their supporting memorandum, Defendants cite these pending charges as support for
dismissing her premature federal action. R. Doc. 38 at 3. She therefore alleges that Defendants
“strategized that a conviction in St. Tammany Parish would expose the instant case to dismissal
under Heck v. Humphrey” and thus, “[t]o that end, nearly two years after all relevant events
(occurring between May 2, 2020 and April 30, 2021) and nearly a year after this action was
filed, the Defendants urged the St. Tammany Parish District Attorney to initiate various traffic
violations against your Plaintiff.” Id. at 2. Even if Heck were to apply, LaMartina argues that a
finding in this matter in her favor would not cast doubt on convictions that stem from an
offense date of May 2, 2021, one year after the events underlying the instant suit, or any time
other than that date. Id. at 4. She claims she did not appeal that state court conviction because
any such conviction relating to conduct on May 2, 2021 “is inconsequential and moot” and she
questions the state court’s “rationale for finding a Florida licensee and resident guilty of failing
to notify Louisiana of any address change.” Id.
LaMartina argues that qualified immunity should not apply in this case to any of the
officials who claim it because all of their actions were beyond the scope of their employment
and/or violations of clearly established law. Id. at 6-11. For example, she alleges that the City of
Mandeville and the MPD officers knew or should have known that they had no power to
enforce the Louisiana statute with which she was cited and further that Mandeville Mayor’s
Court had no power to adjudicate such a charge. Id. at 7. She says Cato’s actions at the gas
station on September 29, 2020 constituted “assault and battery” and “excessive force” both as
to her arrest and her son’s arrest for “behaving badly.” Id. at 9. She alleges that City Prosecutor
Plaia’s actions don’t entitle him to quasi-judicial immunity because he pursued charges he
knew he did not have authority to prosecute and thwarted her attempts to obtain documents and
materials in preparing her defense. Id. at 10. Last, she says Defendants Brant and Parnell (Clerk
and Mandeville City Attorney) acted in concert with the other Defendants to thwart her
attempts to obtain these materials, which she says are not “integral or intertwined with the
judicial process or within the course and scope” of their employment and therefore no immunity
should attach to them. Id. at 11. She concludes that the facts in her complaint, if taken as true,
are sufficient to plead plausible claim for relief as requested. Id. at 12.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that an action may be dismissed “for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2008)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. A claim is plausible on its face
when the plaintiff has pled facts that allow the court to “draw a reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 570. Although a court must liberally
construe the complaint in light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept the plaintiff’s allegations
as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d
190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996), courts “do not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted
factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Arias-Benn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 495 F.3d
228, 230 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)).
Civil claims that cast doubt on a prior criminal conviction must be dismissed under
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In that case, the Supreme Court found that civil
actions for alleged civil rights violations that attack the validity of state confinement that have
not been reversed, expunged, invalidated or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of
a writ of habeas corpus, is not cognizable under §1983. See Hood v. Comm’r Foil, No. 13-5853,
2013 WL 6174614, at *4 (E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2013). The Fifth Circuit further holds that Heck is
applicable in both civil actions for monetary damages and where plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief. Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998).
IV. DISCUSSION
The Court can begin by swiftly dismissing claims alleged against Defendant Blue
Williams LLC, as LaMartina failed to allege any facts whatsoever in her complaint against the
firm. Next, while LaMartina argues that the state court convictions she sustained related to
conduct on May 2, 2021, the transcript of the trial indicates otherwise, as it discusses at length
the conduct of May 2, 2020. See generally Trial Transcript, R. Doc. 37-4 (discussing the date
and conduct throughout). Accordingly, the Court can dispense with the argument that
LaMartina’s convictions stem from events from May 2, 2021 and considers the dates in the
minute entry indicating “2021” as a clerical error.
Next, the Court finds that Heck precludes the instant suit and therefore need not reach
the arguments on qualified immunity. As the law stands in this circuit, Heck is binding
precedent on this Court. Further, to avoid a Heck dismissal here, LaMartina could have
challenged her convictions in a number of ways, and her suspicion of a Heck motivation here is
not a new argument: at trial, she raised this concern when she took the stand. R. Doc. 37-4 at
40:3-40:10 (“And, of course, we all know that that’s because they wanted to use the Heck
Doctrine to get the Federal case dismissed.”). LaMartina nevertheless declined to appeal or
otherwise challenge her conviction, as required by Heck, describing such efforts as
“inconsequential and moot.” R. Doc. 38 at 4.
The underlying convictions would be collaterally attacked if this Court finds favorably
for LaMartina in this case, as it challenges the constitutionality of her arrest on May 2, 2020
and the events that stem from it, including her arrest on September 29, 2020 for her failure to
appear for the May 2, 2020 citation, and the subsequent attempts to prosecute and fight these
charges in Mandeville. That the St. Tammany District Attorney ultimately brought charges
relating to this conduct, not the Mandeville City Attorney, does not change this analysis.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of May, 2024.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11