The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
MISTY HOWELL FARMER CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01384
VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
DALE L BAILEY ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a “Motion for Declaratory Judgment” (Doc. 103) wherein
Plaintiffs, Alanis Tesia Perkins, Elijah Matthew Farmer and Jonathan Matthew Farmer, on
behalf of his and Misty Howell Farmer’s two minor children, (collectively referred to as
“Family Plaintiffs”) move for an order from the Court to declare that Defendant Dale L.
Bailey was an employee of Sheriff Ricky Moses when he raped and sexually assaulted,
Plaintiff, Misty Howell Farmer, (2) that the event was covered by the Beauregard Parish
Sheriff Office’s insurance policy, and (3) that Plaintiffs should be paid for her damages
from said insurance policy.
BACKGROUND
On or about April 22, 2019, Complainant, Misty Howell Farmer, was arrested and
incarcerated in the Beauregard Parish Jail under the authority of the Beauregard Parish
Sheriff’s Office, its agents, and officers.1 On or about May 21, 2019, Misty Howell Farmer
began experiencing high fever and debilitating pain related to a kidney infection while
1 Complaint ¶ 5.
incarcerated and in the custody of the Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Office.2 Due to her
condition, Ms. Farmer repeatedly requested medical care from the Beauregard Parish Jail
Nurse, Lisa Gearen, the Wardens, and Sheriff’s Deputies but was repeatedly denied
treatment.3 Ms. Farmer became unable to advocate for herself, so witnesses to her pain
began advocating on her behalf and contacted Ms. Farmer’s mother, Ms. Frankie Howell,
and jail authorities.4 Despite the requests from Ms. Farmer, her mother, and her advocates,
Ms. Farmer was denied medical treatment for eight (8) days.5
On or about May 28, 2019, Ms. Farmer was admitted to Beauregard Memorial
Hospital and diagnosed with a severe kidney infection.6 While being treated at the Hospital,
the Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Office assigned Sheriff’s Deputy Dale Bailey to guard Ms.
Farmer.7 On or about May 28, 2019, Complainant, Misty Howell Farmer, was raped by
Sheriff’s Deputy Dale Bailey in the bathroom of her hospital room.8
On or about May 30, 2019, Ms. Farmer was notified that Sheriff’s Deputy Dale
Bailey would be on duty as her guard.9 In fear for her safety, she requested to speak with
Registered Nurse Brenda Mahaffey who she notified that Sheriff’s Deputy Dale Bailey
raped her on the night she was admitted to Beauregard Memorial Hospital.10 On or about
May 30, 2019, Nurse Mahaffey notified Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Detectives of Ms.
2 Id. ¶ 6.
3 Id. ¶ 7.
4 Id. ¶ 8.
5 Id.
6 Id. ¶ 9.
7 Id. ¶ 10.
8 Id. ¶ 11.
9 Id. ¶ 12.
10 Id.
Farmer’s report.11 In response, Ms. Farmer was discharged from Beauregard Memorial
Hospital to Lake Charles Memorial Hospital so a SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner)
could perform a rape exam for Ms. Farmer.12
On or about May 30, 2019, Deputy Sheriff Dale Bailey confessed to raping Misty
Howell Farmer to Beauregard Parish Detectives.13 As a result of the confession, Dale
Bailey has been charged with Rape in the 3rd Degree and Malfeasance in Office by Sexual
Conduct.14
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 24, 2019, Ms. Farmer, through her attorney, filed suit against Bailey,
Sheriff Ricky Moses, and other various Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s employees.15 Bailey
was properly served on October 31, 2019, but failed to answer the Complaint.16
Consequently, Ms. Farmer filed a “Motion for Default Judgment” (Doc. 17). On March 1,
2021, the Court issued an Order that dismissed the Sheriffs Dept Beauregard Department
(“Sheriff’s Department”) pursuant to LR 41.3 because no responsive pleadings were filed
and no default was entered within sixty (60) days after service of the summons and
complaint, and Plaintiff failed to show good cause for this deficiency.17 That Order allowed
Plaintiff to reinstate the Sheriff’s Department for good cause shown.18 Plaintiff did not
respond.
11 Id. ¶ 13.
12 Id.
13 Id. ¶ 14.
14 Id.
15 Doc. 1.
16 Bailey is not represented by counsel for the Sheriff’s office, nor any other counsel.
17 Doc. 19.
18 Id.
The Court set a hearing for May 13, 2021, on the Motion for Default Judgment
against Bailey.19 At the hearing, Bailey did not appear, and the Court entered a Judgment
of Default, taking under advisement the amount of damages.20 On May 19, 2021, the Court
entered a Default Judgment in favor of Ms. Farmer, and against Bailey in the amount of
$1,000,000.00.21 Thereafter, the matter was set for trial,22 then continued at the request of
Plaintiff.23
Counsel for Plaintiff then amended the Complaint to assert that Ms. Farmer had
passed away on May 17, 2022, and that Ms. Farmer’s mother, Frankie Sue Howell was
appointed as the Administratix of the Succession of Misty Adean Howell Farmer Clinton;
the matter was again set for trial.24 Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment,25
which was granted in part and denied in part.26 The Court’s ruling dismissed Plaintiff’s
claim for denial of medical care as to all Defendants, the § 1983 claims against Sheriff
Moses for denial of medical care, Monell claims against Sheriff Moses for failure to train
or supervise, Monell claim against Defendants, Jeannie Irvine, Jermaine Tyler, Joe Toler,
and Lisa Gearen in their official capacities, the individual capacity claims against Sheriff
Moses, Jeannie Irvine, Jermaine Tyler, Joe Toler, and Lisa Gearen for denial of medical
care and failure to train and/or supervise.27 The Court further found that Sheriff Moses,
19 Doc. 20.
20 Doc. 26.
21 Doc. 29.
22 Doc. 31.
23 Docs. 36 and 37.
24 Docs. 45 and 50.
25 Doc. 52.
26 Docs. 75 and 76.
27 Id.
Jeannie Irvine, Jermaine Tyler, and Joe Toler are entitled to qualified immunity as to the
alleged denial of medical care.28 The Court denied Sheriff Moses’ motion to dismiss the
state law claims of negligent hiring and supervising.29 Finally, recognizing that Ms. Farmer
had children,30 the Court permitted Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to substitute the
proper Plaintiffs and again continued the trial.31
On September 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge held a scheduling conference and
discussed the Motion to Substitute Ms. Farmer’s children with the Succession
Representative.32 In that discussion, the parties informed the Court that Ms. Farmer had a
surviving spouse, Jason Eric Clifton, but that he was not Ms. Farmer’s spouse when the
tortious events took place. As such, there was a discussion as to whether the surviving
spouse should also be substituted as a Plaintiff.33 The Court ordered additional briefing.
Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Memorandum wherein they agreed that Ms.
Farmer’s husband is a proper and necessary party in a survival action.34 The Magistrate
Judge held another scheduling conference and discussed the proper parties to this litigation.
The Court was informed by counsel for Plaintiffs that ongoing efforts to locate and
communicate with Ms. Farmer’s surviving spouse have been unsuccessful.35 A new trial
date was not set and the Court advised counsel for Plaintiff to continue his efforts to locate
28 Id.
29 Id.
3030 Plaintiff’s admissions admit that Ms. Farmer’s children are (1) Alanis T. Perkins, (2) Elijah J. Farmer, (3)
Samuel Farmer, and (3) Hannah Farmer. Id. pp. 3-4.
31 Id.
32 See Minutes, Doc. 79.
33 Id.
34 Doc. 81.
35 Minutes, Doc. 82, 10/15/2024.
Ms. Farmer’s surviving spouse and for defense counsel to file an appropriate motion to
address the need to join Decedent’s surviving spouse.36
The Court held another scheduling conference where it was determined that Ms.
Farmer’s surviving spouse could not be located. Also, counsel for Defendants requested
additional time to brief the issue of joining the surviving spouse and requested that the
matter be converted to a bench trial, considering that only state law claims remained against
a sheriff defendant.37 The Magistrate Judge then set the jury trial for October 20, 2025,
before the undersigned.38
Shortly thereafter, Defendant, Sheriff Moses filed a Motion to Strike the Jury
Demand, which was granted,39 and the Magistrate Judge granted counsel for Plaintiff’s
Motion to Substitute party to add Mrs. Farmer’s children as Plaintiffs.40 Counsel for
Plaintiffs has now filed the instant Motion for Declaratory Judgment as indicated
hereinabove. Subsequent to the instant Motion, Plaintiff, Jason Eric Clinton’s counsel filed
a Motion to Join as party Plaintiff, Jason Eric Clinton.41 That Motion has now been
granted, and Clinton is added as a Plaintiff in this matter.42
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Family Plaintiffs have filed the instant Motion for Declaratory Relief as noted
herein in order to collect on the $1,000,000.00 Default Judgment against Defendant, Dale
36 Id.
37 Minutes, Entry 85, 11/18/2024.
38 Electronic Scheduling Order, Entry 88, 11/18/2024.
39 Doc. 97.
40 Docs. 89 and 93.
41 Doc. 112.
42 Doc. 113.
Bailey. Defendant opposes the motion and informs the Court that the insurer has denied
coverage. Family Plaintiffs argue that the $1,000,000.00 Judgment should be covered and
paid by the Sheriff’s insurance policy. First, as noted by Defendant, the Family Plaintiffs
are requesting a declaratory order to compel a non-party insurer to reverse it denial of
coverage as to Dale Bailey. Defendant argues that the Family Plaintiff’s motion is
procedurally improper and therefore should be denied.
“The [Declaratory Judgment Act (‘DJA’)] creates a remedy under which ‘any court,
upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations
of any interested party seeking such declaration.’” SEC v. Novinger, 96 F.4th 774, 780 (5th
Cir. 2024) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)) (emphasis original). Rule 57 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure established that it applies to the DJA. Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure defines pleadings as: a complaint; and answer to a complaint; an answer
to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; an answer to a cross claim; a third-party
complaint; and answer to a third-party complaint; and if the courts orders one, a reply to
an answer. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a). Rule 7(b) separately and distinctly
addresses motions. The Fifth Circuit held in SEC v. Novinger that “a motion for declaratory
judgment does not lie where the action is not, itself, for a declaratory judgment.” 96 F.4th
at 783. Additionally, “[r]equests for declaratory judgment are not properly before the court
if raised only by motion. Id. at 780. “To obtain a declaratory judgment, [a party] must
either file a separate action seeking such relief or move to amend [its] complaint.” Id. 780-
81. As such, the Court cannot grant the relief Family Plaintiffs are requesting.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained herein,
IT IS ORDERED that Family Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Doc.
103) is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 23rd day of September, 2025.
. =a D. CAIN, ne C .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8