From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lexing v. Edwards

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION
May 22, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1092 (W.D. La. May. 22, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1092

05-22-2018

HARVEY R. LEXING, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF THE MINOR (EML) v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.


MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

JUDGMENT

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge having been considered, together with the written objections thereto filed with this Court, and, after a de novo review of the record, finding that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is correct,

IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [Doc. Nos. 11, 12, & 13] filed by Defendants John Bel Edwards, Marketa Garner Walters, and Keesha Bordelon, in their official capacities, are GRANTED, and Plaintiff's official capacity claims against said Defendants for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief (including a stay) under federal law are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [Doc. Nos. 13, 17, & 19] filed by Defendants Keesha Bordelon, in her individual capacity; Albert E. Loomis, III; Mary Hamilton; and Anika Lashaye Carston are GRANTED, and Plaintiff's federal law claims against said Defendants and those against Defendant Jo Caston, in her individual and official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's remaining state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motion for more definite statement [Doc. Nos. 17 & 19] filed by Defendants Albert E. Loomis, III, Mary Hamilton, and Anika Lashaye Carston, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that Plaintiff moves to amend his Complaint, the motion is DENIED as futile in light of the Court's analysis.

Monroe, Louisiana, this 22nd day of May, 2018.

/s/_________

TERRY A. DOUGHTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Lexing v. Edwards

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION
May 22, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1092 (W.D. La. May. 22, 2018)
Case details for

Lexing v. Edwards

Case Details

Full title:HARVEY R. LEXING, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF THE MINOR (EML) v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

Date published: May 22, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1092 (W.D. La. May. 22, 2018)

Citing Cases

Tannehill v. Tannehill

The state court proceedings concern child custody and child support, a subject matter in which the state has…