# Ratliff v. Home Depot Corporation

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · June 6, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11066993

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 6, 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/11066993

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the moving party’s “burden is not satisfied with ‘some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,’ by ‘conclusory allegations,’ by ‘unsubstantiated assertions,’ or by only a ‘scintilla’ of evidence” (citations omitted)
- explaining that courts must consider “(1) whether the officer misused or abused his official power, and (2

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JAMES CURTIS RATLIFF CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-255

HOME DEPOT CORP. ET AL SECTION “R” (5)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is defendant Detective Blake Delaune’s unopposed
motion for judgment on the pleadings, and, in the alternative, motion for
summary judgment.1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion
for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff James Curtis Ratliff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 The action relates to
an October 6, 2023, incident between Ratliff and Delaune, among others, in
a Home Depot parking lot, which resulted in Ratliff’s arrest.3

1 R. Doc. 20.
2 R. Doc. 4.
3 R. Doc. 20.
Ratliff filed suit in this Court in January 2024.4 In addition to Delaune,
plaintiff named Home Depot Corporation, Cox Cable, Allied Universal, the

City of New Orleans, and the New Orleans Police Department as defendants.5
On April 15, 2024, the Court dismissed the actions against defendants Home
Depot, Cox Cable, Allied Universal, the City of New Orleans, and the New
Orleans Police Department with prejudice as legally frivolous and for

otherwise failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted.6
Ratliff later mailed a complaint against Delaune to the New Orleans
Police Department’s Public Integrity Bureau in April 2024.7 The Public

Integrity Bureau investigated the allegation and, on July 2, 2024, advised
Ratliff that the investigation determined that his claim against Delaune was
unfounded.8
On February 11, 2025, Ratliff pled guilty to all charges arising out of

the October 2023 incident—impersonating a peace officer, battery of a police
officer, and resisting a police officer with force.9

4 R. Doc. 1.
5 R. Doc. 4.
6 R. Docs. 7 & 8.
7 R. Doc. 20.
8 Id.
9 Id.
Delaune now moves for judgment on the pleadings and, in the
alternative, for summary judgment on qualified immunity.10 Plaintiff did not

file an opposition to the motion. For the following reasons, the Court grants
Delaune’s motion for summary judgment.11

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069,
1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam). “When assessing whether a
dispute to any material fact exists, [the Court] consider[s] all of the evidence
in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations or

weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness
Ins., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008) (first citing Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); and then citing Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). The Court

must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but

10 Id.
11 Because the Court resolves the action through its grant of summary
judgment, it does not reach the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
“unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultimate or conclusory
facts and conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a

motion for summary judgment.” Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d
1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2738 (2d ed. 1983)); see also Little,
37 F.3d at 1075 (noting that the moving party’s “burden is not satisfied with

‘some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,’ by ‘conclusory
allegations,’ by ‘unsubstantiated assertions,’ or by only a ‘scintilla’ of
evidence” (citations omitted)). “No genuine dispute of fact exists if the

record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
nonmoving party.” EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 2014).
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear
the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by

pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an
essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at
325. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by
submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a

genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonmovant may not rest upon the
pleadings but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for
resolution. See, e.g., id.; Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (“Rule 56 ‘mandates the entry
of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion,
against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the

existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)).
In the Fifth Circuit, a district court may not grant a “default” summary
judgment on the ground that it is unopposed. See Morgan v. Fed. Express

Corp., 114 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (collecting cases). Even in
the context of unopposed motions for summary judgment, the movant must
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to

summary judgment as a matter of law. Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50
F.3d 360, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Hibernia Nat. Bank v.
Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir.
1985)). If the moving party fails to meet its burden, the Court must deny its

motion for summary judgment. Id. In determining whether the movant has
met its burden, the Court may accept the movant’s evidence as undisputed.
Morgan, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 437 (quoting UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Long,
227 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Tex. 2002)).
III. DISCUSSION

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who
perform discretionary functions from civil liability, unless their conduct
violates a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). “A clearly established right
is one that is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have

understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ . . . Put simply, qualified
immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly
violate the law.’” Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11-12 (2015) (first quoting

Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012); and then quoting Malley v.
Briggs, 45 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).
As an initial matter, Delaune is entitled to invoke qualified immunity.
Although Delaune was off-duty at the time, he was acting “under color of

state law” when he approached and arrested Ratliff. Bustos v. Martini Club
Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 464-65 (5th Cir. 2010) (explaining that courts must
consider “(1) whether the officer misused or abused his official power, and
(2) if there is a nexus between the victim, the improper conduct, and the

officer’s performance of official duties,” rather than simply whether an
officer is on- or off-duty in determining applicability of qualified immunity).
Delaune’s actions relate to his duty to protect the public, and thus he was
acting “under color of state law.” See Levens v. Gaspard, 2023 WL 2456080
at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 10, 2023) (finding that an off-duty police officer was

acting “under color of state law” when responding to a fight as there was “a
nexus between Plaintiff, [Defendant’s] conduct, and [Defendant’s] duty to
protect the public.”).
Because Delaune invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to

Ratliff to “show that the defense is not available.” Ratliff v. Aransas Cnty.,
Tex., 948 F.3d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Orr v. Copeland, 844 F.3d
484, 490 (5th Cir. 2016). To overcome the burden, plaintiff “must adduce

summary judgment evidence indicating that [defendant’s] actions violated
clearly established constitutional [or statutory] rights of which a reasonable
person would have known.” Id. (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 11).
“Conclusory allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences,

unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation are all insufficient.”
Orr v. Copeland, 844 F. 3d 484, 490 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Reyes v.
Hornbeck Offshore Servs., L.L.C., 383 Fed. Appx. 442, 443-44 (5th Cir.
2010)). Ratliff fails to point to any evidence in response to Delaune’s

qualified immunity motion, and therefore fails to carry this burden on
summary judgment.
In his complaint, Ratliff alleges that Delaune used excessive force, in
violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. To establish an excessive force

claim, the plaintiff must show that he suffered “(1) an injury that (2) resulted
directly and only from the use of force that was excessive to the need and that
(3) the force used was objectively unreasonable.” Ballard v. Burton, 444
F.3d 391, 402 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391,

396 (5th Cir. 2004)). Ratliff fails to point to any evidence indicating that
Delaune’s use of force was clearly excessive and thus in violation of a clearly
established constitutional right. In fact, the Public Integrity Bureau report

found that Ratliff’s claims of excessive force were unfounded.12 Further,
Ratliff pled guilty to all charges stemming from the October 2023 arrest,
including battery of a police officer and resisting a police officer with force.13
Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden to demonstrate that the

qualified immunity defense is not available to Delaune.

12 R. Doc. 20-3 at 26-27.
13 R. Doc. 20.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for

summary judgment. Plaintiffs claims against Detective Blake Delaune are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th _ day of June, 2025.
dernk Varee
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11066993. Public record. Not legal advice.