The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
CEDRICK PELLERIN ET AL CASE NO. 6:20-CV-01380
VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R.
SUMMERHAYS
LAFAYETTE CONSOLIDATED MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL B.
GOVERNMENT ET AL WHITEHURST
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6) filed
on behalf of Lafayette Police Department (“LPD”). (Rec. Doc. 11). Plaintiffs did not
oppose the motion. The Motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for
review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§636 and the standing orders of this Court. Considering the evidence, the law, and
the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons explained below, the Court
recommends that LPD’s Motion be granted.
Plaintiffs filed this suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1983 after their son was
allegedly shot by LPD officers. Plaintiffs sued LPD Chief Scott Morgan, Lafayette
Consolidated Government, LPD, and several unnamed police officers. (Rec. Doc.
3). LPD filed the instant motion seeking dismissal on the grounds that it lacks the
procedural capacity to be sued. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion, and LPD’s
position is supported by ample jurisprudence. See e.g. Broussard v. Lafayette City-
Par. Consol. Gov't, 45 F. Supp. 3d 553, 571 (W.D. La. 2014) (citing cases); and
Brown v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov't, No. CIV. 6:13-2436, 2014 WL
1217960, at *1 (W.D. La. Feb. 28, 2014) (“The undersigned has found no law,
Constitutional, statutory, or otherwise, that confers upon the LPD the authority to
sue or be sued, or that entitles it to function independently of the City of Lafayette.”)
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that Lafayette Police
Department’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 11) be
GRANTED.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen days from service of this
report and recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of
Court. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after
being served with of a copy of any objections or responses to the district judge at the
time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the
proposed legal conclusions reflected in the report and recommendation within
fourteen days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual
findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except upon grounds
of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d
1415 (5 Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C.
§$636(b)(1).
THUS DONE in Chambers, Lafayette, Louisiana on this 23% day of
September, 2021. (whl &
CAROL B. WHITEHURST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE