The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
KAREN ABRAUGH CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-252
VERSUS JUDGE ELIZABETH E. FOOTE
BILL ALTIMUS, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion For Plaintiff To File A Rule 7(a) reply.
[Record Document 164]. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
The Plaintiff filed this civil rights, wrongful death, and survival action after Randall
Abraugh, the decedent, died while in the custody of Bossier Maximum Security Facility. A
predominant legal issue in this case is the Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity,
and Plaintiff has recently filed her Fourth Amended Complaint. The record demonstrates
a pattern of issues with the allegations set forth in each of the Plaintiff’s complaints. The
Court has granted several opportunities to amend the complaint because if pleaded
adequately, the claims may have merit. Still, the most recent complaint contains vague
and conclusory allegations. As such, the Court finds a Rule 7(a) response to the defense
of qualified immunity is justified. The Fifth Circuit has stated that “[w]hen a public official
pleads the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in his answer, the district court may,
on the official’s motion or on its own, require the plaintiff to reply to that defense in detail.”
, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir. 1995). It further noted that requiring a
plaintiff to file such a reply is within the district court’s discretion; however, “[v]indicating
the immunity doctrine will ordinarily require such a reply, and a district court’s discretion
not to do so is narrow indeed when greater detail might assist.” . at 1433-34.
., No. CV 15-0544, 2020 WL 1644054, at *1 (W.D. La. Apr. 2, 2020) (“Under
Fifth Circuit precedent, when faced with a complaint consisting of vague or conclusory
allegations against a defendant who raises a qualified immunity defense, the Court should
first order the plaintiff to file a Rule 7(a) reply that is tailored to specifically address the
defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity.”).
The Plaintiff’s Rule 7(a) reply should contain “allegations of fact focusing on the
conduct of [each] individual who caused the [plaintiff’s] injury,” which, if proven, would
establish the Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.
, 168 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1999); 2020 WL 1644054, at *2. The
Plaintiff’s Rule 7(a) reply, which will primarily address the Defendants’ assertion of
qualified immunity, will influence any future arguments raised by the parties.
2020 WL 1644054, at *2. Thus, the Plaintiff should file a Rule 7(a) reply prior to the
Defendants filing any responsive pleadings. (denying a motion for judgment on
the pleadings with the right to re-urge after the plaintiff filed its Rule 7(a) reply).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the
Defendants’ motion for a Rule 7(a) reply [Record Document 164] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
Rule 7(a) reply is due by November 30, 2023.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file responsive pleadings on or
before December 21, 2023.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 23rd day of October, 2023.
— apoE Kj
ELIZA®
oN Rite are Whee