Filed Date: July 9, 2017
Closed Date: April 16, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
On July 9, 2017, thirteen protesters and two reporters who were arrested during a protest in Baton Rouge filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued the City of Baton Rouge, as well as numerous agents of the Baton Rouge Police Department, East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Department, and other state agencies, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Article 306 of the State of Louisiana Children's Code. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well and monetary relief and attorneys’ fees.
After a Baton Rouge police officer shot and killed Alton Sterling, people gathered in Baton Rouge to speak out against the pattern of police misconduct in the area and, more generally, in the United States. In July 2016, a peaceful, youth-led protest gathered at the State Capitol building where participants spoke, sang, and prayed. Participants then marched around the area in the same fashion.
Eventually, law enforcement officers gathered. The officers ordered the protesters to disperse – an impossible order to comply with, since the police blocked off most of the surrounding streets, had already ordered the protesters to stay off the sidewalks, and were arresting people who stepped into the streets to leave.
Shortly thereafter, the officers swept through the crowd, violently grabbing people and binding their wrists with plastic zip ties. The officers arrested a mix of protesters, reporters, and legal observers. One of the plaintiffs was a 17-year-old girl put in an adult prison with male inmates in violation of the Children’s Code. Another plaintiff was separated from her children, including a five-year-old who was taken from her and put into child protective services.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had, in ordering the dispersal of a peaceful protest and unlawfully arresting participants, violated participants’ First Amendment rights to speech, assembly, and free press. The plaintiffs also claimed excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, and civil conspiracy. The original complaint and some of the exhibits contained many photographic images depicting the actions of both protesters and law enforcement officers.
The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to end the practices and policies described above. The plaintiffs also sought a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the defendants to expunge the plaintiffs’ arrests at the defendants’ cost and bar the defendants from reporting the plaintiffs’ arrests to any law enforcement agency, database, employer, or credit agency.
On July 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of related cases. The plaintiffs listed six cases that all involved damages lawsuits on behalf of people who were wrongfully arrested during the July 2016 Alton Sterling protests in Baton Rouge, including McKesson v. City of Baton Rouge.
The case was originally assigned to Judge Shelly D. Dick. On July 12, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge James J. Brady. Then, in light of the plaintiff’s notice of related cases, the court reassigned the case to Judge John W. deGravelles and Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes, the judges who presided over the McKesson case mentioned above.
On July 21, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, adding an exhibit to the complaint listing the names and charges of all persons arrested during the protest.
On September 11, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint and first amended complaint. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in their use of illustrative pictures in a petition and a “Photographic Timeline” as one of the exhibits. The defendants considered these to be unconventional and unprofessional.
Then, on September 28, 2017, the defendants filed another motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, a motion to strike the first amended complaint. The defendants made similar arguments to the motion above.
On October 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of some of the defendants, namely, the defendants associated with the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association. Judge deGravelles approved this the next day.
On January 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, removing some of the unconventional exhibits complained about in prior motions to dismiss. The amended complaint retained, however, much of the photographic imagery in the complaint itself. On January 11, 2018, the defendants, in response to the plaintiffs’ filing a second amended complaint, withdrew their September 11, 2017 and September 28, 2017 motions to dismiss.
In the following weeks, the defendants filed two motions to strike and four motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. In support of the motions to strike, the defendants argued again that the second amended complaint violated FRCP Rule 8. Additionally, the defendants claimed that the complaint contained redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous allegations.
In support of the motions to dismiss, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Moreover, the defendants claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction over some of the defendants because Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to them. Lastly, the defendants argued that this case was ripe for dismissal on the grounds that the outcome of the case might influence the claims that had already been or had yet been filed.
On February 20, 2018, the defendants moved to stay discovery. Then, on February 26, 2018, the defendants filed another motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, a motion to strike the second amended complaint. The defendants argued that the complaint should be dismissed and/or stricken because the 82-page, 333-paragraph complaint with its attached 64 pages of exhibits, violated the provision of FRCP Rule 8 that requires that a properly pled complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” On May 14, 2018, Judge deGravelles granted in part the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. With the exception of written discovery, discovery was stayed pending resolution of the issues raised in the motions to dismiss.
On January 22, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint against the Louisiana State Police and its superintendent, which the plaintiffs opposed on February 5, 2018. On September 7, 2018, the court granted and denied in part the motion. The court dismissed the claims against the Louisiana State Police on the grounds of being barred by the Eleventh Amendment, while retaining the claims against the superintendent in his official capacity.
On January 24, 2018, the former superintendent of the Louisiana State Police moved to dismiss the claims against him. The plaintiffs opposed on February 28, 2018. On September 7, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The court dismissed in part the claims against him in an individual capacity for lack of personal participation, but maintained the claims against him in an individual capacity for failure to intervene.
On January 24, 2018, certain Louisiana State Police troopers moved to dismiss the claims against them, which the plaintiffs opposed on February 28, 2018. On September 7, 2018, the court granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the motion. The court dismissed the claims against the troopers for excessive force, unlawful search and seizure, and conspiracy, because the plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim. The court deferred whether the plaintiffs stated a cognizable claim for other constitutional violations or that qualified immunity was overcome, because the court could not determine whether these particular defendants were liable.
On January 25, 2018, the sheriff of the East Baton Rouge Parish moved to dismiss the claims against the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office. The plaintiffs opposed on March 21, 2018, and the defendants replied in support of the motion on April 30, 2018. On September 7, 2018, the court granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the motion. The court dismissed the claims against the sheriff in his individual capacity for conspiracy, personal participation, custom of unlawful arrest and excessive force, and failure to train, supervise, and implement a policy, Pending limited discovery, the court deferred ruling on the sheriff’s liability for some state law claims and whether a single policy decision had the moving force of a constitutional violation.In response to these rulings and further discovery, on November 6, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss so that the plaintiffs could file a new complaint that included only the officers against whom the plaintiffs had remaining claims. The new complaint was filed on November 14, 2019; it changed the list of defendants, removing the ones already mentioned and adding new defendants identified during discovery.
On February 26, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, which the court denied without prejudice on July 30, 2020. Plaintiffs were reminded to “re-urge” their motion following the close of discovery.
On September 18, 2020, the plaintiffs moved to resume discovery, which the court found moot on September 22, 2020. Originally, discovery was stayed pending the resolution of motions to dismiss for qualified immunity. As that issue was resolved, a scheduling conference order had already been issued to address the extent of permissible discovery.
On January 21, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the November 2019 complaint. On September 22, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a consent motion to voluntarily dismiss particular defendants from the case. The next day, on September 23, 2021, in consideration of the consent motion, the court granted the dismissal of 10 defendants with prejudice. The dismissed defendants were ordered to bear their own costs.
On October 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a consent motion for partial voluntary dismissal of certain claims. The court granted the consent motion on October 20, 2021, dismissing the claims with prejudice, and ordering each party to bear its own costs. Later that same day, the parties filed a notice of settlement for one of the plaintiffs. On October 21, 2021, the court approved the joint notice of settlement for that plaintiff, ordering the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice to the right, upon good cause, of the parties to reinstate the claims if the settlement was not consummated within sixty days. The parties bore their own costs, and once settlement was consummated the claims would be dismissed with prejudice. The details of the settlement were unknown to the Clearinghouse.
On September 28, 2021, plaintiffs once again moved for partial summary judgment. The next day, on September 29, 2021, defendants moved for summary judgment. On July 14, 2022, the court issued orders on both motions. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on two claims, ordering the dismissal with prejudice of (1) claims against the BRPD police chief in his official capacity, and (2) claims for intentional infliction of emotional duress. The court found the official capacity claims against the police chief to be redundant to the claims against the city, and noted that the plaintiffs failed to oppose the dismissal or respond to the argument, which was effectively a waiver. As to the intentional infliction of emotional duress claims, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact about whether they experienced distress that no reasonable person could be expected to endure. On all other claims, the court denied both the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as they presented issues of fact for a jury to decide. This included claims regarding: Monell liability, qualified immunity, First Amendment generally, First Amendment protests, First Amendment freedom of press, First Amendment retaliation, false arrest, imprisonment, manufacturing of evidence, claims against individual officers, claims against the city, search and seizure, excessive force, failure to intervene, civil conspiracy, Louisiana constitution, negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, negligence, and vicarious liability and indemnity.
On January 20, 2023, the parties filed two consent motions to dismiss certain defendants. The court granted the motions on January 23, 2023, dismissing the specified defendants with prejudice and ordering each party to bear its own costs.
Jury trial began on February 2, 2023. On February 15, 2023, before closing statements in the trial, the Baton Rouge Metro Council approved a $1.17 million settlement, inclusive of costs and attorneys fees. The following day, the court ordered a 60-day dismissal of the action without prejudice, pending the consummation of the settlement agreement.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Jake Parker (6/5/2018)
Anna Brito (11/14/2018)
Ellen Aldin (6/1/2020)
Jerry Lan (4/13/2023)
Grayson Metzger (2/8/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6121773/parties/imani-v-city-of-baton-rouge/
Adcock, John Nelson (Louisiana)
Barriere, Brent Bennett (Louisiana)
Abadie, Rachel Marie (Louisiana)
Andrews, Arthur H. (Louisiana)
Baniszewski, Chris Robert (Louisiana)
Adcock, John Nelson (Louisiana)
Barriere, Brent Bennett (Louisiana)
Casciari, Marie E. (Louisiana)
Lanser, David Joseph (Louisiana)
Most, William Brock (Louisiana)
Russell, William Bradley (Louisiana)
Rutherford, Jack Griffith (Louisiana)
Rutherford, Michelle Marie (Louisiana)
Abadie, Rachel Marie (Louisiana)
Andrews, Arthur H. (Louisiana)
Baniszewski, Chris Robert (Louisiana)
Beck, Ashley Walton (Louisiana)
Brown, Gwendolyn K. (Louisiana)
Brustowicz, Celeste (Louisiana)
Dotson, Anderson O. (Louisiana)
Erlingson, Mary G. (Louisiana)
Evans, James Garrison (Louisiana)
Fahrenholt, Gregory Charles (Louisiana)
Frosch, Craig Edmond (Louisiana)
Gaudin, Andre' Collins (Louisiana)
Gremillion, Frank J. (Louisiana)
Henry, Patrick Edgerton (Louisiana)
Humphrey, Courtney King (Louisiana)
Jackson, Michael L. (Louisiana)
Johnson, Managan Lee (Louisiana)
Johnston, Tara Lynn (Louisiana)
Jordan, David Robert (Louisiana)
Knightshead, Tedrick K. (Louisiana)
Lamothe, Alexandra Marie (Louisiana)
LeBlanc, J. Burton (Louisiana)
Lewis, James Russell (Louisiana)
Monsour, Sarah Shannahan (Louisiana)
Moore, Shelley Denise (Louisiana)
Nebeker, William Albert (Louisiana)
Peck, Christina Berthelot (Louisiana)
Philips, Harry Joseph (Louisiana)
Rome, Alan Gregory (Louisiana)
Sanders, David Glen (Louisiana)
Schillage, Michael Paul (Louisiana)
Schroeder, Lloyd Frederick II (Louisiana)
Sr, Jonathan Holloway (Louisiana)
St. Pierre, Catherine S. (Louisiana)
Urbina, Rolando Roberto (Louisiana)
Usry, Thomas Allen (Louisiana)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6121773/imani-v-city-of-baton-rouge/
Last updated March 22, 2025, 8:25 a.m.
State / Territory: Louisiana
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 9, 2017
Closing Date: April 16, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are thirteen protesters and two reporters arrested and jailed during a police frenzy at the July 2017 Alton Sterling protest, even though they continuously complied with police orders.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Parish of East Baton Rouge, City
AIX Group, Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Amount Defendant Pays: $1,170,000
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Policing: