Case: Hoffman v. Jindal

3:12-cv-00796 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

Filed Date: Dec. 20, 2012

Closed Date: Nov. 1, 2022

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is about whether the State of Louisiana had sufficient procedures by which to execute individuals sentenced to death. On December 20, 2012, an individual who had received the death penalty filed this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Represented by private counsel and a non-profit impact litigation organization, he sued the Governor of Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC") and …

This case is about whether the State of Louisiana had sufficient procedures by which to execute individuals sentenced to death. On December 20, 2012, an individual who had received the death penalty filed this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Represented by private counsel and a non-profit impact litigation organization, he sued the Governor of Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC") and its chief executive officer, and the warden and assistant warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, and prison officials involved in the state's execution procedures.

The plaintiff argued that the state's failure to give him an opportunity to review the state's lethal injection protocol and an opportunity to object to the protocols violated his right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. He also claimed that the state would violate his Eighth Amendment right, as applied to the state via the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment if he were to be executed without a valid protocol in place. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it would be unconstitutional for the state to carry out an execution without affording him the opportunity to access and review the execution protocols and that the protocols must be detailed and that the state may not use expired drugs, illegally obtained drugs, and drugs which were not properly stored. The plaintiff also contended that, by deviating from any written execution protocol, the state would violate his right to equal protection under the law under the Fourteenth Amendment. He also sought a permanent injunction banning the defendants from executing him without promulgating a new protocol that comports with the the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiff also sought compensatory damages for physical pain and suffering and mental anguish, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The case was initially assigned to Judge James J. Brady.

On January 23, 2023, another individual moved to intervene in the case as a plaintiff. The intervenor, also an individual sentenced to death in Louisiana, moved for a preliminary injunction on January 31 to enjoin the officials and agents of the state from executing him until the conclusion of the case. At the time of the motion for a preliminary injunction, the intervenor's execution date was set for February 13, 2013. The intervenor filed a complaint on February 6, seeking the same relief on the same grounds as the original plaintiff.

On February 7, the court granted the intervenor's motion for a preliminary injunction. 2013 WL 489809. The court stated that the intervenor had a right to raise Eighth Amendment objections to the state's method of execution but could not challenge the protocol without knowing what it contains. While the state argued that other courts have found that the use of pentobarbital is not violative of the Eighth Amendment and that appeals when execution is imminent are disfavored, the court found that the intervenor had sufficient reasons for delaying suit because he spend years trying to determine the state's execution protocol. The court found that fundamental fairness required that the protocol be provided to the inmate in a prompt and timely fashion in order to give the inmate adequate notice of how his rights are affected. Based on this requirement of fundamental fairness, the court found that the intervenor was likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable injury without a stay of execution, that a stay would not harm the defendants, and that the public interest weighed toward protecting the intervenor's Fourteenth Amendment rights.

On February 15, the defendants appealed the court's preliminary injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On February 22 and March 8, the defendants moved to dismiss the case. On April 16, the court denied the motions to dismiss as to the Secretary of DPSC and the Warden and Assistant Warden of Angola but did find that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek monetary damages without a showing of prior physical injury. 2013 WL 1637244. The court dismissed the claims against the Governor and the DPSC.

In denying the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court reviewed the state's lethal injection protocols, noting that most recent protocol called for the administration of three drugs: sodium thiopental, an anesthetic to prevent torture and pain to the inmate caused by the other two drugs; pancuronium bromide; and potassium chloride. The court then noted that state's lack of access to sodium thiopental. The court then affirmed that, while the plaintiffs made a public records request for the current protocol in light of the unavailability of the anesthetic, the state refused to provide the requested information and that the plaintiffs had been denied state administrative remedies. The court noted that the defendants had announced in court on February 5 that it would use a single dose of pentobarbital to execute inmates.

The defendants argued that the defendants' claims were prescribed because (1) their sentences became complete when the Supreme Court denied their writs of certiorari and (2) that it had been more than one year since the protocols were changed or adopted. The court rejected the defendants' prescription argument, noting that while the protocol was changed, it was unclear on which date the change became effective. The defendants also argued in favor of dismissal as to the claims against the Governor of Louisiana, the DPSC and its Secretary, and the Warden because the plaintiffs' claims were based on conclusory allegations of respondeat superior. The court rejected this argument, highlighting that the plaintiffs' claims were not based on vicarious liability. Rather, the claims were based upon statutorily conferred duties and powers. The court did find that the plaintiffs could not maintain a § 1983 action against the DPSC--because it is an agency and not an individual--and could not maintain § 1983 actions against Governor Jindal because his only responsibility relevant to the case was to appoint the Secretary and supervise his actions.

The defendants also contended in their motions to dismiss that they were entitled to qualified immunity. They stated that under a qualified immunity analysis, the first question is whether the alleged conduct violated a constitutional right and, if no violation occurred, the judicial inquiry ends. While the defendants cited Thorson v. Epps, 701 F.3d 444, for the proposition that they did not violate the plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights because "mere speculation cannot rise to the level of an objectively intolerable risk," the court distinguished Thorson. Unlike in that case, the plaintiffs' claims here were based on lack of notice regarding the execution protocol and not that the protocol itself rose to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, the court rejected the defendants' claim to qualified immunity.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' case was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court, in denying this contention, found this argument meritless under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, which ruled that the Eleventh Amendment is not a bar against a suit against a state official alleged to be acting in violation of federal law. The court did find that the plaintiffs could not seek monetary damages due to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's prohibition on damages for mental or emotional injury without a showing of physical injury.

On May 15, 2013, the defendants moved for a protective order seeking to limit the information that the plaintiffs could obtain about the execution protocols. The motion was denied on June 4, and the defendants were ordered to turn over the protocols. On August 16, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include challenges to the new protocols. The plaintiffs claimed that, by amending the procedures a mere month prior to the scheduled execution of one of the plaintiffs, the defendants precluded timely and effective evaluation and judicial review which amounted to deliberate indifference and a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs also challenged the new protocols on similar grounds as the previous procedures, arguing that there was a lack of safeguards or that the protocols would be administered in a way as to violate the plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiffs also challenged the 2013 protocol for its denial of their right to access counsel and the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments because it excludes the condemned inmate's attorney from the execution chamber. Again, the plaintiffs alleged that the state's deviation from any written execution protocol would violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. The plaintiffs again requested a permanent injunction, declaratory relief, and money damages under § 1983.  

Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit reversed the February 7 preliminary injunction on August 30, 2013. 729 F.3d 413. The court noted that the district court's reasoning was substantially based on an order by the District of Maryland in Oken v. Sizer, 321 F. Supp. 2d 658, in which the court granted a stay of execution that was subsequently vacated by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court also pointed to a case in the District of Arizona, Beaty v. Brewer, 791 F. Supp. 2d 678, in which the court rejected an inmate's claim that he had the right to review protocol changes and to challenge them under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court concluded that no appellate court thus far had recognized a due process claim such as the one the district court had found and therefore found that the district court's finding of the intervenor's likelihood to succeed on the merits of his Fourteenth Amendment claim was in error and that the court had abused its discretion by granting injunctive relief. The court also noted that Louisiana had repealed its lethal injection protocol two years before the intervenor challenged the state's procedures and that the district court therefore abused its discretion by granting a stay of execution.

On September 9, 2013, the defendants again moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. Additional inmates moved to intervene on January 8, 2014. On January 10, one of the plaintiffs notified the court that his execution date was set for February 5, 2014. On the same day, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' due process claims. While indicating some disagreement with the Fifth Circuit's August 13 reversal of the district court's preliminary injunction order, the court found that it was bound by Fifth Circuit precedent to dismiss the plaintiffs' due process claims.

However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim because, taking their allegations as true, the inmates showed that they were at substantial risk of serious harm which would, if proven, amount to cruel and unusual punishment. These allegations included the protocol's lack of review by a medical professional and that expired and improperly stored drugs would be used. The court also found that the plaintiffs had stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the plaintiffs had asserted enough facts to make a claim for disparate treatment, given their contentions that the state would substantially deviate from its written protocols which would reduce safeguards and increase the risks of painful deaths for the inmates. The court also found that the plaintiffs had stated a valid claim of relief under the Equal Protection Clause by contending that the defendants' past practices suggest that their protocols would not be executed in a uniform and equal way. As factual support, the plaintiffs had pointed to revisions of protocols on the date of the state's last execution, a lack of necessary specificity in the protocols to ensure uniformity, and lack of training for those performing executions.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had stated a claim under their constitutional right to access to courts. While the defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not alleged an actual injury, the court found that the plaintiffs' other legal claims may require access to the courts to be vindicated. The court concluded that, given the plaintiffs' other legal claims, their factual allegations that the defendants may cease attorney-client contact three to six hours before an execution and that the defendants would not allow attorneys to witness the executions were sufficient to establish an actual injury.

While the defendants asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss, the court declined to address the immunity issue. First, it noted that it was unclear from the plaintiffs' complaint upon which claims they sought damages and therefore ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to explain the basis for their damage claims. Second, the court noted qualified immunity did not appear to be relevant for the plaintiffs' requests for the plaintiffs' non-damages claims since those claims were aimed at the prevention of future harm, rather than at previous actions taken by the defendants.

On January 27, 2014, one of the plaintiffs, whose execution was scheduled for February 5, moved for a stay of execution, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction. On February 3, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The complaint added additional factual detail regarding the plaintiffs' lack of notice and opportunity to be heard under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the lack of safeguards and administration of the 2013 protocol that the plaintiffs' alleged would amount to cruel and usual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

On the same day as the plaintiffs amended their complaint, the court ordered a temporary injunction and a stay of execution. The court stated that the defendants had consented to the issuance of the temporary restraining order, which would last 90 days and end on May 4.

On February 14, the defendants moved for a protective order concerning the lethal injection protocols that will be followed during the execution of the plaintiffs. The defendants sought to prevent disclosure of information related to the identities of the manufacturer and source of the lethal injection drugs that would be used, those involved in supplying and testing the chemicals, and the healthcare professionals who would be involved in the executions. The defendants claimed that a protective order was necessary to prevent these individuals from being subjected to harassment, potential loss of business, and other adverse consequences. In the alternative, the defendants requested that the information be disclosed for in camera review by the court and only made available to an exclusive lists of interested parties in the present litigation. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' motion was an attempt to hide their execution protocol and that there was no good cause for the requested protective order.

On March 5, the court denied in part the defendants' motion for a protective order. The court found that the defendants had failed to show good cause for the order and that the information sought by the plaintiffs was relevant to the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court noted that the mere potential for harassment or adverse consequences is insufficient to overcome the plaintiffs' need to adequately present their case. However, the court did conclude that there was good cause to protect the privacy of individuals who would be directly involved in the executions. The court therefore ordered that the defendants identify information of the manufacturer and source of the lethal injection drugs, as well as those involved in supplying and testing the chemicals. It also ordered that the defendants identify the healthcare professionals involved in the process of carrying out the execution but restricted the disclosure to the plaintiffs, counsel for the parties in the litigation, experts who needed the information to formulate their opinions, and court personnel.

On March 10, the defendants moved to stay the court's ruling on the motion for a protective order. On March 11, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus with the Fifth Circuit regarding the court's March 5 ruling. The court denied the motion to stay the ruling on March 12. On March 14, the temporary restraining order and stay of execution through July 23, 2014. On March 21, the Fifth Circuit temporarily restrained the district court's ruling on the motion for a protective order. This stay was lifted on March 31 and the defendants' petition for a writ of mandamus was denied.

On May 28, 2014, the court entered an order, which was agreed to by the parties, to stay the case through November 17, 2014. The court also extended the temporary restraining order and stay of execution to November 17. On November 13, the court entered another order, upon agreement by the parties, to extend the stay and temporary restraining order through June 25, 2015. On June 25, 2015, the court again extended the stay and temporary restraining order through July 11, 2016.

 On May 31, 2016, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to extend the stay of the case to January 8, 2018. The motion was granted on June 1, 2016. On June 28, 2016, three additional parties moved to intervene in the case as plaintiffs. The court granted the motions on July 29, and the intervenors filed their complaints for declaratory and injunctive relief on the same day. On April 28, 2017, two additional individuals moved to intervene as plaintiffs. These motions were granted on June 13, and the intervenors filed their complaints on the same day.

On January 4, 2018, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to extend the stay of the case in light of the death of Judge Brady. On January 5, the case was reassigned to Judge Shelly D. Dick. On January 18, another individual moved to intervene in the case. The motion was granted on February 14, and the intervenor filed a complaint on the same day. On July 11, the defendants filed another unopposed motion to extend the stay of the case. The motion was granted on July 16, and the court extended the stay and temporary restraining order to July 18, 2019. On June 28, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to extend the stay. The motion was granted on July 12.

On July 31, 2019, the State of Louisiana moved to intervene in the case. On September 30, 2019, six individuals moved to intervene as plaintiffs in the case. The motion was granted on October 7, 2019, and the intervenors filed a complaint on the same day. On June 8, 2021, the court denied the motion to intervene by the State of Louisiana.

On July 1, 2021, the court ordered that the case be reopened and ended the stay. On August 5, the parties filed a joint status report, which stated that the defendants did not have drugs available for lethal injection and that they would not be able to procure drugs for the foreseeable future. On August 12, the defendants moved to dismiss the case.

On March 30, 2022, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. 2022 WL 969050. The court found that the plaintiffs claims were moot as the circumstances surrounding the case had changed considerably since the case started in 2012. The state had been unable to procure lethal injection drugs in the intervening years while the case was stayed. While the plaintiffs argued that a dismissal would allow the state to carry out last-minute executions if the state's protocols were changed, the court found these arguments unavailing. The court noted that the only legal method of execution in Louisiana is lethal injection and that the defendants had established that they were unable to obtain execution drugs. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims did not fall into the mootness exception of capable for repetition, yet evading review because they failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that the defendants would resume executing prisoners without substantial changes to the execution protocol or the law. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims did not fall into the voluntary cessation mootness exception because the court found that the defendants' sworn declarations that it had ceased its efforts to obtain lethal injection drugs was true. Since the plaintiffs' claims were moot, the court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The court entered judgment for the defendants on March 31, 2022. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration on April 28. The motion was denied on November 1, 2022. 2022 WL 16571312.

The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Nicholas Gillan (11/18/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4271219/parties/hoffman-v-jindal/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Bakale-Wise, Elizabeth Ann (Louisiana)

Boren, James E. (Louisiana)

Attorney for Defendant
Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Atkinson, Judith R. (Louisiana)

Babin, Stephen F. (Louisiana)

Balhoff, Thomas E. (Louisiana)

Judge(s)

Dick, Shelly Deckert (Louisiana)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages

Hoffman v. Cain

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

Complaint
1

3:12-cv-00796

Original Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

Complaint
14

3:12-cv-00796

Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Pleading / Motion / Brief
118

3:12-cv-00796

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Feb. 3, 2014

Feb. 3, 2014

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4271219/hoffman-v-jindal/

Last updated Nov. 5, 2023, 5:50 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Civil Filing Sheet, # 2 Attachment Attachment to Civil Filing Sheet, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Trenticosta, Cecelia) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

1 Attachment Civil Filing Sheet

View on PACER

2 Attachment Attachment to Civil Filing Sheet

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Exhibit 1

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Exhibit 2

View on PACER

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

Clearinghouse
2

MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by All Plaintiffs. (Trenticosta, Cecelia) Modified on 12/21/2012 to change event type(DCB). (Entered: 12/20/2012)

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

PACER
3

Exhibit(s) to 2 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jessie Hoffman. (Trenticosta, Cecelia) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

PACER
4

MOTION to Enroll Michael D. Rubenstein and Mercedes Montagnes as Additional Attorney by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order)(Trenticosta Kappel, Cecelia) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 2 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SMG)

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 4 MOTION to Enroll Michael D. Rubenstein and Mercedes Montagnes as Additional Attorney. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SMG)

Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

PACER
5

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Enroll Additional Attorneys Michael D. Rubenstein and Mercedes Montagnes as counsel of record for the plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/21/2012. (LLH) (Entered: 12/21/2012)

Dec. 21, 2012

Dec. 21, 2012

PACER
6

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. It is ordered that the plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee of $33.97 in accordance with 28 USC 1915. A copy of this order shall be sent to the plaintiff and to Centralized Inmate Banking. Filing Fee due by 1/14/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/21/12. (DCB) (Entered: 12/21/2012)

Dec. 21, 2012

Dec. 21, 2012

PACER
7

MOTION to Designate Michael D. Rubenstein as lead counsel by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) Modified on 1/2/2013 to edit text (DCB). (Entered: 01/02/2013)

Jan. 2, 2013

Jan. 2, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 7 MOTION to Enroll Michael D. Rubenstein as Attorney lead counsel. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (DCB)

Jan. 2, 2013

Jan. 2, 2013

PACER
8

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Designate Michael D. Rubenstein as Lead Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 1/2/13. (DCB) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

Jan. 2, 2013

Jan. 2, 2013

PACER

Filing fee: $ 33.97, receipt number 4699020682. (SMG)

Jan. 4, 2013

Jan. 4, 2013

PACER
9

90-DAY CONFERENCE ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 3/28/2013 at 1:00 PM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger. Status Report due by 3/14/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 1/10/13. (BNW) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

PACER
10

First MOTION to Intervene by Christopher Sepulvado. (Clements, Gary) (Entered: 01/23/2013)

Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

PACER
11

MOTION to Intervene by Christopher Sepulvado. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;)(Clements, Gary) (Attachment 1 replaced on 1/24/2013) (JDL). Modified on 1/24/2013 to correct document orientation (JDL). (Entered: 01/23/2013)

Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 11 MOTION to Intervene. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (JDL)

Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

PACER
12

ORDER to Serve Defendants: The Clerk of Court issue summons to the deft. FURTHER ORDERED that the USM is to serve the defendants wherever found. Pltf is responsible for providing the USM with a completed Form 285 for each deft to be served. FURTHER ORDERED that the USM serve the defts with the summons, the Complaint, the Order setting the scheduling conference and the Motion to Intervene. Copies of these shall be provided to the USM by the clerk of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 1/24/2013. (JDL) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

PACER
13

Summons Issued as to Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Angie Norwood. (Sent to USM for service) (JDL) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

PACER

Filing fee: $ 316.03, receipt number 4699020763 (TMR)

Jan. 28, 2013

Jan. 28, 2013

PACER
14

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Christopher Sepulvado. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Memorandum in Support)(Clements, Gary) Modified on 2/1/2013 to edit text (JDL). (Entered: 01/31/2013)

Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Clearinghouse
15

NOTICE and ORDER considering the 11 and 14 MOTION to Intervene by Christopher Sepulvado and to enjoin his execution date presently set for 2/13/2013: A Status Conference will be held on 2/5/2013 at 11:30 AM in chambers before Judge James J. Brady. Counsel wishing to participate by telephone shall contact chambers for permission. The clerk's office shall include Jacqueline B. Wilson on the docket sheet as representing the defts in intervention. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 2/1/2013. (JDL) (Entered: 02/01/2013)

Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

RECAP
16

NOTICE and ORDER: The clerk's office shall remove Jacqueline B. Wilson on the docket sheet as representing the defendants in intervention. The clerk's office shall include Douglas Swenson and David Santi on the docket sheet as representing the defendants in intervention. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 2/1/2013. (JDL) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

PACER
17

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jessie Hoffman. Bobby Jindal served on 2/1/2013, answer due 2/22/2013. (US Marshal, ) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

PACER
18

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christopher Sepulvado. Burl Cain served on 2/1/2013, answer due 2/22/2013; James M. LeBlanc served on 2/1/2013, answer due 2/22/2013; Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections served on 2/1/2013, answer due 2/22/2013; Angie Norwood served on 2/1/2013, answer due 2/22/2013. (Clements, Gary) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

PACER
19

MOTION to Compel by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

PACER
20

MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 19 MOTION to Compel by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 19 MOTION to Compel. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SMG)

Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 20 MOTION for Expedited Hearing on 19 MOTION to Compel. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SMG)

Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

PACER
25

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James J. Brady: Status Conference held on 2/5/2013. The parties inform the court they have a hearing before Judge Morvant on 2/8/2013 at 1:30 p.m. The parties will inform the court of the outcome of that hearing. The court may hold an evidentiary hearing on 2/11/2013 at 9:30 p.m. (Court Reporter S. Thompson.) (SWE) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

PACER
47

Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Christopher Sepulvado (DCB) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

RECAP
21

First MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Angie Norwood. (Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

PACER
22

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction :(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge James J. Brady. (SWE) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

PACER
23

Second MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Angie Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit State by State Comparison from Deaht Penalty Informatoin Center Website, # 2 Exhibit News Article from Death Penalty News, # 3 Exhibit BBC News Article)(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

PACER
24

MEMORANDUM in Support of 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Christopher Sepulvado. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Clements, Gary) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

PACER
26

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James J. Brady: Status Conference held on 2/6/2013, The court granted the Motion to Intervene by Christopher Sepulvado. A hearing on the Preliminary Injunction will be held on 2/7/2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom One. Motions terminated: 11 MOTION to Intervene filed by Christopher Sepulvado. (SWE) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

PACER
29

ORDER as to 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Christopher Sepulvado. For the reasons assigned in the record, it is ordered that the motion for preliminary injunction enjoining his execution date, presently set for February 13, 2013, be and is hereby GRANTED until further orders of this court. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 02/07/2013. (SMG) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

RECAP
27

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James J. Brady: Motion Hearing held on 2/7/2013 re 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Christopher Sepulvado. Parties present argument. Counsel for defendant moves for 52(c) Judgment of Partial Finding. After brief recess, the court GRANTS the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and stays the execution set for 2/13/2013 until further orders of this court. The Motion for 52(c) Judgment of Partial Finding is moot. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for a discovery schedule. Counsel for defendant proffers evidence to the court (D-1 through D-4). (Court Reporter S. Thompson.) (SWE) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

PACER
28

SUPPLEMENTAL REASONS for granting 14 Intervenor's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Sepulvado's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 14) is GRANTED based on his due process claim. The execution is hereby STAYED pending further orders of this Court. Discovery will proceed as ordered by the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 2/7/2013. (JDL) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

RECAP
30

EXHIBIT D-1 by Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.. (SWE) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

PACER
31

EXHIBIT D-2 by Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.. (SWE) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

PACER
32

EXHIBIT D-3 by Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.. (SWE) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

PACER
33

EXHIBIT D-4 by Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.. (SWE) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

PACER
34

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jessie Hoffman. Burl Cain served on 2/4/2013, answer due 2/25/2013; James M. LeBlanc served on 2/4/2013, answer due 2/25/2013; Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections served on 2/4/2013, answer due 2/25/2013; Angie Norwood served on 2/4/2013, answer due 2/25/2013. (US Marshal, ) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

PACER
35

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Angie Norwood for proceedings held on 2/7/2013 before Judge BRADY.. (Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

Feb. 8, 2013

Feb. 8, 2013

PACER
36

RULING denying 19 Motion to Compel Inspection; denying 20 Motion for Expedited Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 02/08/2013. (SMG) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

Feb. 8, 2013

Feb. 8, 2013

PACER
37

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Preliminary Injunction hearing before Judge James J. Brady held on 02/07/2013. Court Reporter: Shannon Thompson, CCR. Phone Number: 225-389-3567. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have five (5) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 2/26/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/8/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/6/2013. (Thompson, Shannon) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

Feb. 8, 2013

Feb. 8, 2013

PACER
38

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the USCA for the 5th Circuit of 29 Order, by Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 053N-911830. (Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

Feb. 15, 2013

Feb. 15, 2013

PACER

Record on Appeal Electronically Certified. regarding 38 Notice of Appeal to the USCA for the 5th Circuit. US Court of Appeals notified of certification. (TMR)

Feb. 20, 2013

Feb. 20, 2013

PACER
39

Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals regarding 38 Notice of Appeal to the USCA for the 5th Circuit. (TMR) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

Feb. 21, 2013

Feb. 21, 2013

PACER
40

MOTION to Dismiss by Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Angie Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Swenson, Douglas) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

Feb. 22, 2013

Feb. 22, 2013

PACER
41

NOTICE and Order to Parties on 40 MOTION to Dismiss : Opposition shall be filed within 21 days of the filing of the motion. Any Reply shall be filed within 15 days of the filing of the opposition. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 2/26/2013. (LLH) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

Feb. 26, 2013

Feb. 26, 2013

PACER
42

MOTION to Dismiss by Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Angie Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Swenson, Douglas) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

PACER
43

Return on Appeal Transmittal Letter. (LLH) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

PACER
44

NOTICE of Briefing Schedule on 42 MOTION to Dismiss : Opposition to the motion shall be filed on or before 3/29/2013. The mover may file a reply brief within 15 days of the filing of the opposition. Replies due by 4/15/2013. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 03/12/2013. (SMG) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

March 12, 2013

March 12, 2013

PACER
45

STATUS REPORT by All Parties. (Rubenstein, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

PACER
46

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 40 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jessie Hoffman. (Trenticosta Kappel, Cecelia) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

PACER
48

ORDER: At the request of counsel for the plaintiff, the Scheduling Conference set for 3/28/2013 is reassigned to 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger and will be held by telephone. The corut will place the calls. Local counsel may participate in person if they want to do so. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 3/19/2103. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(Riedlinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/19/2013)

March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013

PACER
49

Mail Returned as Undeliverable on 41 Notice to Parties - Response to Motion Deadlines (JJB). Mail returned from David Santi. Reason: Return to Sender - Not Deliverable as Addressed Unable to Forward. (SMG) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

PACER
50

RESPONSE in Opposition to 42 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Christopher Sepulvado. (Clements, Gary) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

PACER
51

REQUEST by Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections for Record on Appeal regarding 38 Notice of Appeal to the USCA for the 5th Circuit. (Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/25/2013)

March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

PACER
52

Transmitted Electronic Record on Appeal to Counsel of Record regarding 38 Notice of Appeal to the USCA for the 5th Circuit. The clerk of court will retain the responsibility of sending the record to the 5th Circuit upon their request. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Appeal Record)(TMR) (Entered: 03/25/2013)

March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

PACER
53

REPLY to 40 MOTION to Dismiss, 46 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Angie Norwood. (Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

March 28, 2013

March 28, 2013

PACER
54

MINUTE ENTRY: Scheduling Conference held on 3/28/2013 before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger. Cnsl for pla explained the need for the lengthy fact discovery period. Fact Discovery due by 5/1/2014. Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions shall be filed by 9/30/2014. Final Pretrial Order due by 1/30/2015. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/12/2015 at 1:30 PM in chambers before Judge James J. Brady. Jury Trial set for 4/20/2015-5/1/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge James J. Brady...FURTHER ORDERED that any party who or which contends that information or documents the party must produce pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) qualifies for protections under Rule 26(c) shall file a motion for entry of a protective order by 5/15/2013... (BNW) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

March 28, 2013

March 28, 2013

PACER
55

MOTION for Leave to File Sur-reply by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Proposed Order)(Montagnes, Mercedes) (Entered: 04/01/2013)

April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013

PACER
56

ORDER granting 55 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-reply filed by Jessie Hoffman. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 4/2/2013. (SWE) (Entered: 04/02/2013)

April 2, 2013

April 2, 2013

PACER
57

Sur-REPLY to 42 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jessie Hoffman. (NLT) (Entered: 04/02/2013)

April 2, 2013

April 2, 2013

PACER
58

REPLY to 50 Response in Opposition to Motion, 42 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by Sepulvado filed by Burl Cain, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Angie Norwood. (Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

PACER
59

RULING: denying 40 Motion to Dismiss ; denying 42 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court finds that Hoffman and Sepulvados claims should be permitted to proceed as to all the named Defendants with the exception of Governor Jindal and DPSC. Additionally, Hoffman and Sepulvado are not entitled to seek monetary damages absent a showing of prior physical injury. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 4/16/2013. (LLH) Modified on 4/17/2013 (LLH). (Entered: 04/16/2013)

April 16, 2013

April 16, 2013

RECAP
60

MOTION for Protective Order by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angie Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Protective Order)(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

May 15, 2013

May 15, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 60 MOTION for Protective Order . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH)

May 16, 2013

May 16, 2013

PACER
61

RESPONSE in Opposition to 60 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jessie Hoffman, Christopher Sepulvado. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Trenticosta Kappel, Cecelia) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

June 3, 2013

June 3, 2013

PACER
62

RULING denying 60 Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to FRCP 26(a). Defendants shall provide the Protocols to the plaintiffs within 14 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/4/2013. (LLH) (Entered: 06/04/2013)

June 4, 2013

June 4, 2013

RECAP

Set/Reset Deadlines: response due. (LLH)

June 4, 2013

June 4, 2013

PACER
63

ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angie Norwood.(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

June 11, 2013

June 11, 2013

PACER
64

ANSWER to 47 Complaint of Intervention by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angie Norwood.(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

June 11, 2013

June 11, 2013

PACER
65

MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint by Jessie Hoffman, Christopher Sepulvado. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Amended Complaint)(Trenticosta Kappel, Cecelia) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

July 1, 2013

July 1, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 65 MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH)

July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013

PACER
67

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Burl Cain, John Does, James M. LeBlanc, Angie Norwood, filed by Jessie Hoffman, Christopher Sepulvado.(JDL) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

RECAP
66

ORDER granting 65 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. No opposition has been filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 8/16/2013. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Riedlinger, Stephen) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

PACER
68

MOTION to Enroll James L. Hilburn, Jeffrey K. Cody as Additional Attorney by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angie Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Order)(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 08/22/2013)

Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

PACER
69

ORDER granting 68 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel. Added attorneys James L. Hilburn and Jeffery K. Cody for Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc and Angie Norwood. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 8/22/2013. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Riedlinger, Stephen) (Entered: 08/22/2013)

Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

PACER
70

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to Amended Complaint by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angela Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

Sept. 9, 2013

Sept. 9, 2013

PACER
71

NOTICE to Parties on 70 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to Amended Complaint : Opposition to the motion shall be filed on or before 9/30/2013. The mover may file a reply brief within 15 days of the filing of the opposition. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 9/9/2013. (SMG) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

Sept. 9, 2013

Sept. 9, 2013

PACER
72

MOTION for Expedited Discovery Response by Christopher Sepulvado. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Attachment)(Clements, Gary) Modified on 9/23/2013 to edit text (LLH). (Entered: 09/20/2013)

Sept. 20, 2013

Sept. 20, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 72 MOTION for Discovery . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LLH)

Sept. 23, 2013

Sept. 23, 2013

PACER
73

RULING denying 72 Motion for Expedited Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/23/2013. (SMG) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

Sept. 23, 2013

Sept. 23, 2013

PACER
74

RESPONSE in Opposition to 70 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to Amended Complaint filed by Jessie Hoffman, Christopher Sepulvado. (Trenticosta Kappel, Cecelia) Modified on 9/30/2013 to edit text (CGP). (Entered: 09/27/2013)

Sept. 27, 2013

Sept. 27, 2013

PACER
75

REPLY Memorandum in Support of 70 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angela Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wilson, Jacqueline) Modified on 10/16/2013 to edit text (JDL). (Entered: 10/14/2013)

Oct. 14, 2013

Oct. 14, 2013

PACER
76

MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Trenticosta Kappel, Cecelia) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

Oct. 21, 2013

Oct. 21, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 76 MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (JDL)

Oct. 22, 2013

Oct. 22, 2013

PACER
77

MOTION for Leave to File Answer to Amended Complaint by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angela Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading; Answer to Amended Complaint)(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/11/2013)

Nov. 11, 2013

Nov. 11, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 77 MOTION for Leave to File Answer to Amended Complaint. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (JDL)

Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

PACER
78

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angela Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Order)(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/12/2013)

Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

PACER
79

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 76 MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories filed by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angela Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/12/2013)

Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

PACER
80

ORDER granting 78 Ex Parte Motion to Exceed Page Limits Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/13/2013. (See Doc #79 for Opposition) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Riedlinger, Stephen) Modified on 11/13/2013 to add text (JDL). (Entered: 11/13/2013)

Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

PACER
81

Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit A to Reply Memorandum, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rubenstein, Michael) Modified on 11/15/2013 to edit text (JDL). (Entered: 11/14/2013)

Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

PACER

MOTION(S) REFERRED: 81 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (JDL)

Nov. 15, 2013

Nov. 15, 2013

PACER
82

ORDER granting 81 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel, filed by Jessie Hoffman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/15/2013. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Riedlinger, Stephen) (Entered: 11/15/2013)

Nov. 15, 2013

Nov. 15, 2013

PACER
83

Reply MEMORANDUM in Support of 76 MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories filed by Jessie Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(NLT) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

Nov. 15, 2013

Nov. 15, 2013

PACER
84

MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief by Burl Cain, James M. LeBlanc, Angela Norwood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Proposed Sur-Reply Brief)(Wilson, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/20/2013)

Nov. 20, 2013

Nov. 20, 2013

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Louisiana

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 20, 2012

Closing Date: Nov. 1, 2022

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Two death row inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary, State

Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, State

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, State

Governor of Louisiana, State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Equal Protection

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Failure to train

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Death Penalty:

Lethal Injection - Chemicals Used

Lethal Injection - General

Lethal Injection - Staffing (including physician)