# Epps v. Brown

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · January 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10790968

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** January 30, 2025
- **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/10790968

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DEVANTE EPPS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 24-175-JWD-SDJ
RODERICK BROWN, ET AL.
ORDER
Defendants, Sid J. Gautreaux, III, as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, Roderick Brown,
and American Alternative Insurance Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”), have filed
Defendants’ Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) (“MTD”) in which they argue that the
claims by Plaintiff Devante Epps (“Plaintiff”) should be dismissed for a number of reasons.
Specifically, Defendants contend, inter alia, that: (1) Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Eighth
Amendment; (2) Plaintiff fails to adequately allege a cause of action against Deputy Brown in his
individual capacity because Plaintiff fails to plead (a) that Brown was personally involved, (b) that
Plaintiff suffered a serious medical need, and (c) that Brown was deliberately indifferent to any
need; and because, in any event, Brown is entitled to qualified immunity; (3) Plaintiff fails to state
a viable claim against Brown in his official capacity; (4) Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a claim

against Sheriff Gautreaux in his individual or official capacity; (5) the claim against the EBRSO
fails because it has no legal capacity to sue or be sued; (6) the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims; and (7) Plaintiff cannot
generate new claims in his opposition memorandum. (See Docs. 4-1, 7) Defendants thus argue that
the First Amending and Supplemental Petition for Damages (Doc. 1-6 at 76) (“FASP") is defective
for failing to articulate a plausible claim (as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).
Plaintiff maintains that his FASP withstands the challenges raised in the MTD. (See Doc.
6.) Plaintiff does not specifically request leave to amend to cure any deficiencies detailed in the
MTD should the MTD be granted. (See id.)
The Court reviewed the motion. Without expressing any view as to its merits, the Court

affords Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the purported pleading defects; the Court grants Plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). See Jordan v.
Gautreaux, No. 21-48, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2022 WL 895720, at *30–31 (M.D. La. Mar. 25, 2022)
(granting leave to amend in response to successful Rule 12(b)(6) motion when no prior amendment
was given in response to ruling from the Court).
An amended complaint must plead specific factual allegations that, if true, would
“plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. The amended complaint
should also be self-contained and include all allegations and claims made by Plaintiff against
Defendants. Plaintiff will be given fourteen (14) days in which to amend the operative petition to
plead viable claims with jurisdiction. Defendants will have fourteen (14) days thereafter to file

any responsive pleadings.
The Court specifically cautions counsel for Plaintiff that his response to the MTD contains
what appears on the surface to be several immaterial arguments. The Court cautions counsel for
Plaintiff to stick as well as possible to the specific issues that are relevant to deciding any motion.
Further, Plaintiff’s counsel must have a good faith basis in law or fact to assert claims; failure to
abide by this rule could result in the imposition of sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
Finally, this case was originally filed in September of 2022, (Doc. 1-3 at 2), and the petition
has been amended before, (see Doc. 1-2). If Defendants file a second motion to dismiss which the
Court ultimately grants, it is highly likely the Court will dismiss the claims with prejudice as futile
and because of undue delay.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants can re-urge any argument made in their
MTD in response to an amended complaint, if appropriate.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 30, 2025.
S
JUDGE J OHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10790968. Public record. Not legal advice.