The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VICKI BONVILLAIN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-60
TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED SECTION “L” (2)
GOVERNMENT ET AL
ORDER & REASONS
Pending before the Court is Defendant Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Deputy Michael Leone’s
(“Leone”) motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff Vicki
Bonvillain’s (“Bonvillain”) claims against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. R. Doc. 16. Bonvillain opposes the motion. R. Doc. 21. Having considered the briefing,
record, and applicable law, the Court rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the death of Bonvillain’s thirty-one-year-old son, Jonathon Verdin,
on January 8, 2023. R. Doc. 1 at 4. Bonvillain is a Native American member of the Houma Tribe,
as was her son. Id. at 2, 14. She describes her community involvement, local activism, and her past
election to the Terrebonne Parish School Board, alleging that these facts made her and her family
uniquely vulnerable to political targeting. Id. at 2-3. She claims that her son was “shot and killed
during a traffic stop by a Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Deputy” and that the Sheriff Deputy (Leone),
his boss Sheriff Timothy Soignet, Terrebonne Coroner Patrick Walker, Terrebonne Custodian of
Records Mart Black, Houma Police Chief Travis Theriot, and former Houma Police Chief Dana
Coleman covered up the homicide and reported instead that her son committed suicide. Id. at 2-4.
Bonvillain alleges many facts that support a finding of homicide as opposed to suicide, for
example that her son was shot twice in the chest, there were no gunpowder residue or marks near
the skin indicative of a close range (self-inflicted) gunshot wound, her son was right-handed and
his wounds would not be possible with a right-handed self-inflicted wound, her son had no criminal
or mental health history nor is there any evidence he was suicidal leading up to his death, and that
Leone gave inconsistent and contradictory statements about the shooting. Id. at 5-6. Additionally,
she alleges that there were no bullet holes found in her son’s truck nor any bullets found in his
body or truck. Id. at 10-11. Further, Bonvillain claims that her son was quickly autopsied without
her being notified of his death and without her consent to conduct the autopsy, so she was unable
to see his body’s condition upon death, and she alleges that Coroner Walker did not perform or
assist with the autopsy yet declared the cause of death suicide the same day. Id. at 9-11.
Bonvillain also claims she sought records and information relating to her son’s death, but
that Custodian Black provided only partial Houma Police Department records. Id. at 8-9. She
alleges that he did not produce the video from the pole camera that captured the shooting and the
materials he did produce contained “obvious alterations” which were, she believes, designed to
mislead her. Id. As to the pole camera footage, she alleges that she and three unnamed people
obtained and watched it together, and that the time stamp on the video is substantially earlier than
reported by the Houma Police Department. Id. at 2-3.
Bonvillain sued the Houma Police Chief and former Chief because they supervised the
“sham investigation into the death” of her son, alleging that Chief Theriot pressured her to
“participate in a press conference stating that her son had committed suicide” and that they thus
have a role in the coverup. Id. at 6-7. Further, she alleges that former Chief Coleman, who was
Chief at the time of the death, went on to work for Attorney General Landry and actively worked
to stymy her attempts to elevate this matter above local law enforcement. Id. at 7.
Bonvillain sued the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government (as employer of the
sheriffs), Sheriff, Sheriff Deputy, Custodian of Records, Coroner, and the Houma Police
Department Chief and former Chief asserting three causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) a
claim for deprivation of the life of her son; (2) a claim relating to the coverup of the alleged
homicide; and (3) a claim alleging gender and racial discrimination, both against herself and her
son, which she alleges tarnished the integrity of the investigation into his death. Id. at 12-15. She
seeks various remedies, including compensatory and punitive monetary damages for the alleged
homicide and coverup and a determination that homicide was in fact his cause of death. Id. at 16-
17. Bonvillain also asserts that as her son was unmarried and without children, she is the proper
party to seek survival action damages and wrongful death damages under Louisiana law. Id. at 12.
All Defendants except Sheriff Deputy Leone and Sheriff Soignet filed an answer together
in which they generally deny Bonvillain’s allegations and raise a number of affirmative defenses,
including failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, time bars and prescription has
run, and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. R. Doc. 9. Sheriff Soignet filed a separate
answer which also denies her allegations and asserts affirmative defenses such as failure to state a
claim and qualified immunity. R. Doc. 13. Deputy Sheriff Leone filed a 12(b)(6) motion in lieu of
an answer. R. Doc. 16.
II. PRESENT MOTION
In Leone’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, he urges this Court to dismiss Bonvillain’s claims
against him because her allegations are merely conclusory and she does not allege specific facts
as to Leone beyond accusing him of shooting her son. R. Doc. 16. He argues that the first count
should be dismissed because the pole footage Bonvillain references in her complaint, and which
he manually attached as an exhibit to his motion, shows that Leone did not approach Verdin’s
vehicle nor does it show that Leone fired shots at Verdin. R. Doc. 16-1 at 6-7. Rather, Leone
alleges that it shows that he initiated the traffic stop and that Verdin opened his driver-side door.
Leone then “can be seen hunching over and scanning his surroundings, likely in reaction to the
self-inflicted gunshots fired by Verdin,” and then Leone gets back into his police car and drives
away. Id.
As to counts two and three, Leone argues that Bonvillain barely mentions him or specific
facts about his actions to constitute conspiracy or discrimination charges. Id. at 7-8. He argues she
makes no factual assertions as to how or if Leone conspired to engage in a coverup, and that her
complaint fails to make any allegations whatsoever as to how or if Leone discriminated against
her or her son on gender or racial grounds. Id. He therefore urges the Court to dismiss her complaint
against him.
In response, Bonvillain first asserts concerns with the authenticity of the pole camera
footage Leone submitted with his motion and raises admissibility concerns on that basis. R. Doc.
21. Next, Bonvillain addresses it on the merits and notes that the footage itself implicates Leone
and forecloses any qualified immunity defense because it plainly shows that he fled the scene of
what he purports was a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Id. at 3. She argues that the facts she alleges
in her complaint, which “stretch[] twenty three paragraphs (3-27) over eleven pages (2-12)” are
more than conclusory and instead state the information she had at the time of filing suit. Id. at 4.
She attaches six exhibits to her opposition memorandum including the autopsy report and photos,
which she alleges support her position that her son was killed via homicide, and the narrative report
from the response to her son’s death, which demonstrate that Leone changed his story between
that night and this suit, and which she argues indicates a coverup. Id. Bonvillain asks this Court
that if it does find her complaint deficient, that she be allowed leave to amend, but she asserts that
her facts pleaded are sufficient to withstand Leone’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 4-5.
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)).
IV. DISCUSSION
First, the Court notes that this motion is brought by Leone only and will not address the
complaint’s sufficiency against other named Defendants. Second, the Court viewed the pole
footage attached to Leone’s motion and referenced throughout Bonvillain’s complaint. From the
Court’s perspective, the video raises more questions than it answers. If this was a self-inflicted
gunshot wound – which this video does not clearly establish – then Leone’s flight from the scene
makes little sense. As a trained officer, one might assume he would stay and administer aid, or call
for a medical team, or some other course of action besides getting in his car and driving away
against traffic. That said, the video does not show that he shot the victim, nor does it show that the
victim shot himself. In fact, the video appears to show the victim continuing to move about in the
cab of his truck after Leone’s flight. The Court therefore finds candor issues with Leone’s motion
and memorandum that appear to frame this video as exculpatory for him, but that is not dispositive
on his 12(b)(6) motion.
The Court finds Bonvillain’s complaint sufficiently states facts that state a plausible claim
for relief against Leone. The Court, as it must, takes the facts in the complaint as true in evaluating
a 12(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, the fact that Bonvillain’s son was shot twice raises questions about
the cause of death being suicide. The video footage raises questions about Leone’s actions in the
aftermath of the alleged gunshots, and his flight from the scene gives this Court pause as to his
entitlement to qualified immunity. The exhibits Bonvillain attaches show that Leone changed his
story at various points in this investigation, which, in conjunction with the facts to be taken as true
in her complaint, state a plausible claim for conspiracy to cover up the actions that led to her son’s
death. While the Court acknowledges that the complaint is sparse as to allegations of
discrimination by Leone specifically against Bonvillain or her son, the Court observes that her
complaint alleges that she heard racially charged language in videos produced to her and that she
is unsure who uttered this language. At this stage of the litigation, these allegations must be
considered true. The Court finds that this is just barely enough to survive Leone’s 12(b)(6) motion,
considering that at the complaint filing stage, discovery has not yet begun and Bonvillain does not
have all of the facts that could support her alleged counts. The Court finds it pleads enough facts,
just barely, at this stage.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Leone’s 12(b)(6) motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of May, 2024.