The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIE JONES (#4573876) CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
CHARLES GOODEN, ET AL. NO. 21-00372-BAJ-EWD
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) filed by Defendant Tim
Hooper. The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 11). The Magistrate Judge has issued a Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 21), urging that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims
for declaratory relief against Hooper for failure to allege sufficient facts in the
Complaint but to provide Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to provide additional
facts to support his claims for injunctive relief resulting from alleged Eighth
Amendment violations. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
(Doc. 22), The Magistrate Judge recommends the following.
Among the defenses asserted by Hooper is the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Here, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s assertion
of the defense. (Doc. 21, p.4). Plaintiff seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief
against Defendant in his official capacity. (Docs. 1 & 11). The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that qualified immunity does not shield officials
acting in their official capacities from injunctive and declaratory relief. See Leggett v.
Duke, 279 Fed. Appx. 301, 308 (5th Cir. 2008) “qualified immunity is not a defense
to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief”).
Second, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant's
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims for declaratory relief. (Doc. 21, p. 6). Plaintiff does
not distinguish his claims for declaratory relief from his claims for injunctive relief.
Moreover, Plaintiff seeks “[declaratory] relief only as a prerequisite for this
Honorable Court to fashion injunctive relief.” (Doc. 11, p. 3). A declaratory judgment
action is redundant where the affirmative claims and counterclaims before the Court
would resolve all questions that arise in the declaratory relief action. Centex Homes
v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 18-719, 2014 WL 1225501, at *14 (N.D. Tex. March 24,
2014). Declaratory relief is not a prerequisite for mjunctive relief; therefore, the
Court has no reason to award Plaintiff declaratory relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
claims for declaratory relief are dismissed with prejudice,
Third, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief for implementing a policy that
is a repudiation of constitutional rights. (Doc. 21, p. 7). The Fifth Circuit has held
that a plaintiff must identify the specific policy at issue and explain how that policy
amounted to denial of constitutional rights such that it was the moving force behind
the alleged violation. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2002); Spiller v. City
of Texas City Police Department, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997). However, when
there is a risk to inmate health or safety that is so longstanding and persistent that
prison officials must have been aware of the danger, a court may conclude that a
plaintiff may have properly stated a claim challenging a custom or unstated policy.
See Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508, 511-512 (5th Cir. 2003).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that the excessive spraying of mace is a common practice
at Louisiana State Penitentiary and that numerous grievances and lawsuit have been
filed regarding the use of chemical agents. (Doc. 1, p. 10-11). The Magistrate Judge
determined, and the Court agrees, that Plaintiff s conclusory allegations are
insufficient to established that the risk to inmate health or safety was so longstanding
and pervasive that Defendant must have been aware of the danger. (Doc. 21, p. 8).
Finaily, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief for failure to train or
supervise. (Doc. 21, p. 9). The Fifth Circuit has instructed that to hold a defendant
supervisor liable on a theory of failure to train or supervise, the plaintiff must show
that (1) the supervisor either failed to supervise or train the subordinate official, (2)
a causal link exists between the failure to train or supervise and the violation of the
plaintiffs rights; and (8) the failure to train or supervise amounts to deliberate
indifference. Brauner v. Coody, 793 F.3d 4938, 501 (5th Cir. 2015). Conclusory
allegations of failure to train or supervise are insufficient to set out a constitutional
claim. Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 287, 292 (Sth Cir. 20085).
The Magistrate Judge determined, and the Court agrees, that Plaintiffs claim
against Defendant for failure to train suffers from the same deficiencies as his policy
or custom claim. (Doc. 21, p. 9). As currently pleaded, the Complaint fails to allege
with specificity a pattern of similar violations such that the alleged inadequate
training was so obvious that a constitutional violation would almost always result.
Having carefully considered Plaintiffs Complaint and related filings, the Court
APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS it
as the Court’s opinion in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Timothy Hooper for
declaratory relief be and is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claim against Defendant
Timothy Hooper for injunctive relief resulting from Eighth Amendment violations
arising from customs and practices at Louisiana State Penitentiary and/or for
Defendant’s failure to train and/or supervise officers be and are hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs right to file, within 21 days of this ruling, an
amended complaint that cures, if and where possible, the deficiencies identified
herein.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 2s. of March, 2022
□□□
JUDGE BRIAN X. JACK SON
UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA