# Corley v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · April 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10840655

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** April 7, 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/10840655

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CORHONDA CORLEY in her own interest
and on behalf of her minor son real party
in interest C.C.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 24-812-JWD-SDJ
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH
SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

RULING

Defendants Sid Gautreaux, III and Captain Rodney Walker (“EBRSO Defendants”) have
filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) (“MTD”) in which they argue that the claims by Plaintiff
Corhonda Corley, in her own interest and on behalf of her minor son real party of interest C.C.
(“Plaintiff”), should be dismissed for a number of reasons. Specifically, EBRSO Defendants
contend, inter alia, that: (1) Plaintiff lacks procedural capacity to assert claims on behalf of her
minor child, (Doc. 7-1 at 3–4); (2) Plaintiff fails to state a viable claim against the “East Baton
Rouge Sheriff’s Office,” (id. at 4–5); (3) Plaintiff’s petition should be dismissed as an improper
“shotgun pleading” that fails to properly identify what causes of action she is raising and against
whom, (id. at 5–7); (4) Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable § 1983 official capacity claims against
them, (id. at 7–9); (5) Plaintiff fails to state a viable § 1983 claim for false arrest, excessive force,
and bystander liability against Captain Rodney Walker, (id. at 9–14); and (6) Plaintiff fails to state
any state law claims against EBRSO Defendants for false arrest or bystander liability, (id. at 14–
16). EBRSO Defendants thus argue that the Petition for Damages (“Petition”) (Doc. 1-3 at 18–27)
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 her Petition withstands the challenges raised in the MTD. (See Doc.
14.) Plaintiff requests leave to amend to cure any deficiencies detailed in the Petition should the
MTD be granted. (See id. at 4–5.)
The Court has reviewed the MTD. 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 Epps v. Brown,
No. 24-175, 2025 WL 350241, at *1 (M.D. La. Jan. 30, 2025) (deGravelles, J.) (granting leave to
amend under similar circumstances (citing Jordan v. Gautreaux, 593 F. Supp. 3d 330, 372–73
(M.D. La. 2022) (deGravelles, J.) (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 all
defendants. Plaintiff will be given twenty-eight (28) days in which to amend the operative petition

to plead viable claims. The Court reminds Plaintiff’s counsel that she must have a good faith basis
in law or fact to assert claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
Finally, this case was originally filed in August of 2024, (Doc. 1-2 at 1). If EBRSO
Defendants file a second motion to dismiss which the Court ultimately grants, it is highly likely
the Court will deny leave to amend as futile and because of undue delay. See Apollo Energy, LLC
v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 387 F. Supp. 3d 663, 679 (M.D. La. 2019)
(deGravelles, J.) (denying leave to amend when plaintiff should have had notice of issue from
court's ruling on original motion to dismiss, and when further amendment would be futile); Skinner

2
v. Ard, 519 F. Supp. 3d 301, 321–22 (M.D. La. 2021) (deGravelles, J.) (same); Martin v. Roy, No.
20-339, 2022 WL 894599, at *13 (M.D. La. Mar. 25, 2022) (deGravelles, J.) (same)).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that EBRSO Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. EBRSO Defendants can re-urge any argument made in
their MTD in response to an amended complaint, if appropriate.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 7, 2025.
S
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10840655. Public record. Not legal advice.