Pemberton et al v. West Feliciana Parish School Board et al

Case Number: 3:2009cv00030
Filed: January 16, 2009
Court: Louisiana Middle District Court
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
Referring Judge: Stephen C. Riedlinger
Presiding Judge: Ralph E. Tyson
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
February 10, 2012 62 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM RULING ON MOTION for Summary Judgment by West Feliciana Parish School Board 41 . Signed by Honorable James T. Trimble, Jr on 2/10/12. (Roaix, Greta)
February 3, 2010 25 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING Adopting 23 Report and Recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. West Feliciana Parish School Board's, Lloyd Lindsey's and Darryl Powell's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is granted in part, dismissing the following claims : (1) the Title IX claim against dft Powell in his individual capacity; (2) all § 1983 claims against both the dft School Board and dft Powell, including the claim for punitive damages; and, (3) pla's state law claim for intentional inflict ion of emotional distress under Article 2315 against both the dft School Board and dft Powell. Further the dfts' motion is denied as to the pla's Title IX claim against the dft School Board. The pla is allowed 14 days to file an amended com plaint alleging sufficient facts to state: (1) a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against the dft School board and dft Powell, in his individual capacity; (2) a § 1983 claim for punitive damages against dft Powell, in his individual capacity; and (3) a state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against both the dft School Board and dft Powell. In response to any amended complaint the pla may file, the dfts may again seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Signed by Chief Judge Ralph E. Tyson on 1/29/10. (BP, )
December 14, 2009 23 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding 14 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). It is the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the West Feliciana Parish School Board's, Lloyd Lindsey's and Darryl Powell's Rule 12(b )(6) Motion to Dismiss be granted in part, dismissing the following claims: (1) the Title IX claim against dft Powell in his individual capacity; (2) all § 1983 claims against both the dft School Board and dft Powell, including the claim for pun itive damages; and, (3) pla's state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Article 2315 against both the dft School Board and dft Powell. It is further recommended that the dfts' motion be denied as to the pla' ;s Title IX claim against the dft School Board. It is further recommended that the pla be allowed 15 days to file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts to state: (1) a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against the dft School boar d and dft Powell, in his individual capacity; (2) a § 1983 claim for punitive damages against dft Powell, in his individual capacity; and (3) a state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against both the dft School Board and dft Powell. In response to any amended complaint the pla may file, the dfts may again seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Objections to R&R due by 12/31/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/14/09. (BP, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Louisiana Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pemberton et al v. West Feliciana Parish School Board et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?