Stewart v. J D S O
2:20-cv-00568
W.D. La.Feb 8, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Mark Stewart, a Louisiana Department of Corrections inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 civil-rights complaint naming the Jefferson Davis Sheriff’s Office (JDSO) and three individuals (Locke, Ethridge, Gatte).
- The complaint was subject to mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for frivolousness, failure to state a claim, or immunity issues.
- The magistrate judge analyzed whether the JDSO is a proper defendant under Rule 17(b) by applying Louisiana law on juridical persons.
- Louisiana law treats juridical persons as entities to which the law attributes legal personality (e.g., corporations); Louisiana courts consistently hold sheriff’s offices/departments are not juridical entities.
- The magistrate judge concluded JDSO is an improper defendant and recommended dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the JDSO; claims against the individual defendants were addressed separately.
- Parties were given 14 days to file objections to the report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Jefferson Davis Sheriff’s Office is a proper defendant under Louisiana law and may be sued under § 1983 | Stewart alleges the JDSO violated his federal constitutional rights and is liable under § 1983 | JDSO cannot be sued because it is not a juridical person under Louisiana law (no legal personality) | JDSO is an improper defendant; claims against it dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (defines state-actor requirement for § 1983 liability)
- Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard for determining frivolous claims)
- Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard for failure-to-state-a-claim analysis)
- Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 1995) (requirement to accept plaintiff’s allegations as true in frivolity review)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedure and consequences for filing objections to a magistrate judge’s report)