# Miller v. LeBlanc

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · December 7, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192465

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** December 7, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192465

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TRINITY MILLER, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-353-BAJ-RLB

JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Scheduling Order
(“Motion to Stay”). (R. Doc. 39). The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 41).
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. (R. Doc. 42).
The deadline for filing an opposition to this motion has not expired. LR 7(f).
I. Background
On June 18, 2021, Plaintiffs Trinity Miller (individually and on behalf of her deceased
father Michael Miller) and Sarah Nicole George (on behalf of the minor B.M.)1 brought this
survival and wrongful death action regarding the death of Michael Miller (“Miller”) while
incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”). (R. Doc. 1). The named Defendants are
James LeBlanc, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Corrections and
Public Safety (“LeBlanc”), Darrel Vannoy, in his capacity as the warden of LSP (“Vannoy”),
Officer Brandalynn McMullen, a correctional officer at LSP (“McMullen”), and unidentified
officers (“Other Officers”). Plaintiffs allege that Miller died while incarcerated from an apparent
drug overdose after ingesting a bag of drugs that McMullen tried to confiscate from him after a
pat down search of his body.

1 Janice and Jimmy Marcantel have been substituted as plaintiffs on behalf of the minor B.M. (R. Doc. 25).
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged three causes of action. In Count 1, Plaintiffs alleged a
violation of Miller’s “right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and the right to due
process and equal protection of the laws as protected by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” which was allegedly violated by
LeBlanc and Vannoy by failing to provide Miller access to appropriate medical care. (R. Doc. 1

at 8-9). In Count 2, Plaintiffs alleged that Vannoy “failed to supervise his subordinates, namely
McMullen and Other Officer(s), to ensure that these subordinates did not ignore inmate’s
requests and needs for medical treatment. . . .” (R. Doc. 1 at 9) (emphasis removed). Finally, in
Count 3, Plaintiffs alleged that McMullen and the “Other Officers” deprived Miller of “the right
to reasonable and adequate medical care, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment,
the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to due process and
equal protection of the laws as protected by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment and Article IV (Privileges and Immunities Clause) of the United States
Constitutional and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (R. Doc. 1 at 9-10).

LeBlanc, Vannoy, and McMullen filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss raising the defense of
qualified immunity with respect to all claims other than the Eighth Amendment claim brought
against McMullen. (R. Doc. 16).
Notwithstanding these assertions of qualified immunity, the parties sought a proposed
Scheduling Order providing dates to conduct and complete discovery. (R. Doc. 17). The Court
entered a Scheduling Order providing, among other things, the deadline to complete non-expert
discovery by December 1, 2022. (R. Doc. 18). Defendants did not seek a stay of discovery while
their Partial Motion to Dismiss was pending.
On September 28, 2022, the district judge granted the Partial Motion to Dismiss,
dismissed all constitutional claims other than the Eighth Amendment claim brought against
McMullen, and provided Plaintiffs with the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to cure
the dismissed Eighth Amendment claims for failure to provide medical care and failure to
supervise. (R. Doc. 31).

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint, which again raises three
causes of action. (R. Doc. 35).2 In Count 1, Plaintiffs allege a violation of Miller’s “right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment and the right to due process and equal protection of the
laws as protected by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §
1983,” which was allegedly violated by LeBlanc and Vannoy by failing to screen and stop the
introduction of drugs at LSP. (R. Doc. 35 at 9-10). In Count 2, Plaintiffs allege that LeBlanc and
Vannoy “failed to supervise their respective subordinates, to ensure that these subordinates
screened and detected the introduction of drug contraband.” (R. Doc. 35 at 10). Finally, in Count
3, Plaintiffs allege that McMullen and the “Other Officers” deprived Miller of “the right to

reasonable and adequate medical care, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment,
the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to due process and
equal protection of the laws as protected by the Eighth Amendment and Article IV (Privileges
and Immunities Clause) of the United States Constitutional and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (R. Doc. 35
at 10-11).
On October 26, 2022, Defendants filed a second Motion to Dismiss, which remains
pending before the district judge. (R. Doc. 37). Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 41(b) on

2 Trinity Miller, who is not proceeding pro se, was not named as a plaintiff in this Amended Complaint. The sole
named Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint are Janice and Jimmy Marcantel on behalf of the minor child, B.M.,
individually and on behalf of B.M.’s deceased father, Michael Miller. (R. Doc. 35 at 1).
the bases that Plaintiffs have re-asserted dismissed claims against all Defendants under the
Fourteenth Amendment that are not cognizable, and Plaintiffs have attempted to bring new
Eighth Amendment claims against LeBlanc and Vannoy in violation of the district judge’s ruling
on the first Partial Motion to Dismiss. (R. Doc. 37-1 at 7-8). Defendants seek dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(6) on the bases that all defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the

Fourteenth Amendment claims, and LeBlanc and Vannoy are entitled to qualified immunity with
respect to the Eighth Amendment claims. (R. Doc. 37-1 at 8-13). Again, McMullen does not
assert qualified immunity with respect to the Eighth Amendment claim brought against him.
On November 10, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Stay in light of the
foregoing Motion to Dismiss, which raises the qualified immunity defense. (R. Doc. 39).
Defendants request a stay of all discovery in light of the Fifth Circuit decision Carswell v. Camp,
37 F.4th 1062, 1066 (5th Cir. 2022), opinion withdrawn and superseded on denial of reh'g, No.
21-10171, 2022 WL 17335977 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2022).
While Plaintiffs concede that a stay of discovery is warranted with respect to the claims

brought against LeBlanc and Vannoy, they nevertheless argue that discovery should proceed on
the Eighth Amendment claim brought against McMullen. (R. Doc. 41). In support of this
position, Plaintiffs argue that they have only asserted an Eighth Amendment claim in the
Amended Complaint against McMullen. (R. Doc 41 at 3-4). Plaintiffs argue that the Eighth
Amendment claim against McMullen is not “so intertwined” with the claims against LeBlanc
and Vannoy to allow a stay of discovery with respect to McMullen. (R. Doc. 41 at 4-7). Plaintiffs
also argue that there is good cause to allow discovery to proceed against McMullen, as such
discovery may “reveal which other officers were present when Mr. Miller died.” (R. Doc. 41 at
7). Finally, Plaintiffs seek an extension of the discovery deadline set to expire on December 1,
2022 (the day Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion to Stay and their own Motion to
Extend Discovery Deadlines). (R. Docs. 41 at 8; R. Doc. 42).
II. Law and Analysis
A. Legal Standards
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to issue a protective

order after a showing of good cause “to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)’s
“good cause” requirement indicates that the party seeking a protective order has the burden “to
show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of
fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int’l, Inc, 134
F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Garret, 571 F.2d 302, 3026 (5th Cir.
1990) (citation omitted).
“Trial courts possess broad discretion to supervise discovery.” Landry v. Air Line Pilots
Ass’n Int’l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 n.114 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). “A trial court

has broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may
dispose of the case are determined.” Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987).
“The qualified immunity defense affords government officials not just immunity from
liability, but immunity from suit.” Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1996)
(citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-26 (1985)). Qualified immunity shields
government officials from individual liability for performing discretionary functions, unless their
conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
The Fifth Circuit has clarified that all discovery involving a defendant raising the defense
of qualified immunity must be stayed until resolution of the defense of qualified immunity:
The Supreme Court has now made clear that a plaintiff asserting constitutional
claims against an officer claiming [qualified immunity] must survive the motion
to dismiss without any discovery.

Carswell, -- F.4th --, No. 21-10171, 2022 WL 17335977, at *3 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2022). In
Carswell, the Fifth Circuit concluded that a district court abused its discretion by deferring its
ruling on a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds and subjecting the public official
defendants to discovery on the plaintiff’s Monell claims, which created an undue burden in light
of increased litigation costs and complications caused by bifurcated discovery. Id. at *3-6. The
Fifth Circuit expressly held that the required stay of discovery is not limited to claims to which
the defense of qualified immunity is raised. Id.
In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit highlighted the Supreme Court’s concerns about the
burdens of litigation imposed on public officials. It also noted that these same burdens would be
present if the Court allowed discovery to proceed against defendants in different capacities or
against co-defendants that make no claim for qualified immunity:
It is no answer to these concerns to say that discovery for petitioners can be
deferred while pretrial proceedings continue for other defendants. It is quite likely
that, when discovery as to the other parties proceeds, it would prove necessary for
petitioners and their counsel to participate in the process to ensure the case does
not develop in a misleading or slanted way that causes prejudice to their position.
Even if petitioners are not yet themselves subject to discovery orders, then, they
would not be free from the burdens of discovery.

Id. at *5 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 685-86 (2009)). “In other words, the Court
ruled out even ‘minimally intrusive discovery’ against official defendants before a ruling that
plaintiff had met his burden to overcome the qualified immunity defense at the pleading
stage.” Carswell, 2022 WL 17335977, at *5 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686).
Consistent with Carswell, the undersigned has stayed all discovery where a defendant has
alleged qualified immunity and there was no practical manner to allow discovery to proceed
against a co-defendant that has not raised a defense of qualified immunity without prejudicing
the defendants who have raised the defense of qualified immunity. See Henderson v. Bd. of
Supervisors, No. 21-297-JWD-RLB, 2022 WL 2654978 (M.D. La. July 8, 2022); Cavalier v. La

Dept. of Pub. Safety & Corrections, et al., No. 21-656-JWD-RLB, 2022 WL 3456533 (M.D. La.
Aug. 17, 2022).3
B. Analysis
Having reviewed the Amended Complaint, the pending Motion to Dismiss, and the
arguments of the parties, the Court finds it appropriate to stay all discovery until resolution of the
pending Motion to Dismiss.
Foremost, there is an apparent dispute regarding whether the Amended Complaint only
asserts Eighth Amendment claims. Indeed, while Claim 3 simply deletes references to the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, it nevertheless claims violations of Miller’s “right to due

process and equal protection of the laws.” (R. Doc. 35 at 11). There is no dispute that McMullen
has asserted a “qualified immunity” defense with respect to any asserted Fourteenth Amendment
claim.
The Court need not decide in the context of this ruling whether the Amended Complaint
is properly interpreted as re-asserting Fourteenth Amendment claims. It is sufficient to find that
the Carswell decision, as superseded, forecloses any discovery involving LeBlanc and Vannoy
while their qualified immunity defenses remain pending, including any discovery pertaining to

3 The Henderson and Cavalier decisions relied on the now-withdrawn version of the Carswell opinion. See Carswell
v. Camp, 37 F.4th 1062, 1066 (5th Cir. 2022), opinion withdrawn and superseded on denial of reh'g, No. 21-10171,
2022 WL 17335977 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2022).
the Eighth Amendment claim raised against McMullen. The Court must stay all discovery with
respect to the defendants who have raised the defense of qualified immunity, even discovery
pertaining to claims to which the qualified immunity defense does not apply, because such
discovery would present an undue burden to the defendants who have raised qualified immunity
defenses. Carswell, 2022 WL 2186363, at *4-5.

It is sufficient to observe that in this case, Plaintiffs have alleged that each of the
Defendants violated Miller’s due process and equal protection rights by acting with deliberate
indifference and disregard for Miller’s safety by allowing his death by overdose while
incarcerated. Even though Plaintiffs’ claims against LeBlanc and Vannoy are limited to failure to
implement drug detection and screen policies and failure to properly train and supervise their
employees, there is no practical manner by which the Court could limit bifurcated discovery on
the alleged deliberate indifference of McMullen. Any discovery with respect to McMullen’s
actions or inactions under LSP policy would bring into question her training and supervision.
The underlying factual allegations are so intertwined that allowing discovery to proceed solely

against McMullen would inherently, and inappropriately, require LeBlanc and Vannoy to
participate in the discovery process. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 68-65. (“Even if petitioners are not yet
themselves subject to discovery orders, then, they would not be free from the burdens of
discovery.”). The Court finds no plausible manner in which bifurcated discovery could proceed
with respect to McMullen without implicating, and unduly burdening, LeBlanc and Vannoy.
Given the allegations in this action, as well as the Fifth Circuit’s directives in Carswell,
the Court finds it appropriate to stay all discovery in this action until resolution of the pending
Motion to Dismiss. Even if such discovery is not completely foreclosed by Carswell, the Court
finds good cause pursuant to Rule 26(c) to stay all discovery given the undue burden that such
discovery would impose on LeBlanc and Vannoy while their qualified immunity defenses are
pending.
III. Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 39) is
GRANTED, and discovery is STAYED until further order of the Court. The parties shall

contact the undersigned after the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss addressing the issue of
qualified immunity for the issuance of a new scheduling conference order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines
(R. Doc. 42) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will set new discovery
deadlines as necessary after the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 7, 2022.
S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192465. Public record. Not legal advice.