The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLARENCE WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 22-12-SDD-EWD
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AND A&M COLLEGE, THE LOUISIANA
STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, AND OFFICER
ANDREW PALERMO
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss1 filed by Defendants,
Louisiana State University and A&M College (“LSU”) and the Louisiana State University
Police Department (the “LSUPD”) (collectively “LSU Defendants”). Plaintiff, Clarence
Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition2 to this Motion, to which LSU Defendants filed a
Reply.3 For the reasons that follow, LSU Defendants’ Motion is granted. Plaintiff shall
have leave to amend.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges the following. In September 2018, LSUPD Officer Andrew Palermo
(“Officer Palermo”),4 arrested Plaintiff for driving while intoxicated after Plaintiff was in a
car accident.5 Officer Palermo executed an affidavit of arrest; and, in January 2019,
Plaintiff was charged with several crimes related to his operation of the vehicle.6 In
November 2020, “a nolle prosequi was entered on the said bill of information…”7
1 Rec. Doc. No. 5.
2 Rec. Doc. No. 10.
3 Rec. Doc. No. 12.
4 Officer Palermo is also named as a defendant but as not joined in the instant motion to dismiss.
5 Rec. Doc. No. 1-2, p. 3.
6 Id. at 4.
7 Id.
Plaintiff asserts that Officer Palermo knowingly included false information in the
affidavit of arrest, including that Plaintiff entered into a DWI checkpoint then turned around
to exit the checkpoint and that Plaintiff smelled of marijuana.8 After the arrest, but before
Officer Palermo executed the affidavit, a blood sample was taken from Plaintiff which
tested negative for narcotics and alcohol.9 Plaintiff avers that Officer Palermo was aware
that the test was negative when he prepared the affidavit.10
Plaintiff asserts several causes of action: § 1983 actions for violations of his Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, false arrest, and Louisiana constitutional violations.11
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
LSU Defendants move to dismiss on several grounds, but the Court need only
consider the first: LSU Defendants assert that they are not legal entities capable of being
sued.12 Plaintiff agrees and requests leave to amend.13
La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(1) provides that the Board of Supervisors of LSU, as the post-
secondary management board for LSU and its related entities, has the capacity to sue
and be sued. This Court has previously interpreted La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(1) to bar suit
against LSU and the LSUPD as they lack capacity to be sued.14 Therefore, the instant
Motion must be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 5.
12 Rec. Doc. No. 5-1, p. 6.
13 Rec. Doc. No. 10, p. 5–7.
14 Davis v. Louisiana State Univ. & A&M Coll., 2019 WL 179580, at *4 (M.D. La. Jan. 11, 2019).
LSU Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss'® is granted, and LSU Defendants are
dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff will have 21 days from the date of this Ruling to cure
the deficiencies in the Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 13, 2022.
CHIEF super Sicicy D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
18 Rec. Doc. No. 5.