Order to Dismiss Taffaro Complaint

7/30/2019 Order to Dismiss Taffaro Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/order-to-dismiss-taffaro-complaint 1/38

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

EASTERN DI STRI CT OF LOUI SI ANA

CRAI G P. TAFFARO, J R. CI VI L ACTI ON

v. NO. 12- 2720

DAVI D E. PERALTA, ET AL. SECTI ON "F"

ORDER AND REASONS

Bef or e t he Cour t are f i ve mot i ons: ( 1) Davi d E. Per al t a' s

mot i on t o di smi ss f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m, mot i on t o st r i ke,

and mot i on f or mor e def i ni t e st at ement ; ( 2) Donal d Bour geoi s, Cr ai g

DeHar de, Cl ay Di l l on, and Wi l l i amM. McGoey' s mot i on to di smi ss f or

f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m; ( 3) Cr ai g P. Taf f ar o, J r . ' s mot i on f or

gag or der ; ( 4) Donal d Bour geoi s, Cr ai g DeHar de, Cl ay Di l l on, and

Wi l l i am M. McGoey' s speci al mot i on t o st r i ke; and ( 5) St . Ber nar d

Par i sh and St . Bernar d Par i sh Gover nment ' s mot i on t o di smi ss f or

f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he

def endant s’ mot i ons t o di smi ss are GRANTED; Donal d Bour geoi s, Cr ai g

DeHar de, Cl ay Di l l on, and Wi l l i am M. McGoey and t he Par i sh' s

speci al mot i on t o st r i ke i s DENI ED as moot ; and t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s

mot i on f or gag order i s DENI ED.

Background

Thi s ci vi l r i ght s case ar i ses out of a vendet t a al l egedl y

waged by Davi d E. Per al t a, t he cur r ent St . Ber nar d Par i sh

Presi dent , and perpetuated by other members of Par i sh government ,

1

Case 2:12-cv-02720-MLCF-KWR Document 94 Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 38



agai nst t he f or mer pr esi dent , Cr ai g P. Taf f ar o, J r . , who i nsi st s

t hat Mr . Per al t a' s campai gn of r et al i at i on agai nst hi m cul mi nat ed

i n "an unaut hor i zed r ai d" on hi s st or age uni t i n vi ol at i on of hi s

Four t h Amendment r i ght s.

Cr ai g Taf f ar o became Pr esi dent of St . Ber nar d Par i sh on

J anuar y 8, 2008. At t hat t i me, Davi d Peral t a was Par i sh Chi ef

Admi ni st r at i ve Of f i cer . But Taf f ar o di smi ssed Per al t a as CAO f or

i nsubor di nat i on. Thi s, Taf f ar o i nsi st s, was t he i mpet us f or

Per al t a' s announcement t hat he woul d r et al i at e agai nst Taf f ar o.

Taf f ar o' s t enure as Pr esi dent ended i n 2011, i r oni cal l y,

af t er he l ost hi s r eel ect i on bi d t o Per al t a. Taf f ar o r esi gned i n

December 2011 when he was appoi nted t o be Di r ect or of t he Stat e

Hazard Mi t i gat i on Gr ant Progr amand Recover y Coor di nat i on; a st at e

gover nment j ob he st i l l has t oday.

Shor t l y af t er Per al t a t ook of f i ce as Par i sh pr esi dent i n

ear l y J anuar y 2012, t he U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce f i l ed a l awsui t

agai nst St . Ber nar d Par i sh, i n whi ch t he DOJ compl ai ned t hat t he

Par i sh, on Taf f ar o' s wat ch, vi ol at ed t he Fai r Housi ng Act by

di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst mi nor i t i es seeki ng t o r ent r esi dent i al

pr oper t y i n t he Par i sh. Uni t ed St at es v. St . Ber nar d Par i sh, No.

12- 321 ( E. D. La. ) , Sect i on C. The DOJ l i t i gat i on was ongoi ng unt i l

r ecent l y, when t he Cour t appr oved a set t l ement agr eement and

di smi ssed t he case. See i d. at Rec. Doc. 339. I t was t hi s

l i t i gat i on t hat put i nt o mot i on t he event s gi vi ng r i se t o t hi s

2




case.

I n mi d- Oct ober 2012 an at t or ney f or t he Par i sh, Wi l l i am

McGoey, 1 communi cated wi t h Taf f aro concerni ng out st andi ng di scover y

i n t he DOJ l i t i gat i on. McGoey asked Taf f ar o t o pr ovi de any r ecor ds

he had i n hi s possessi on f r om hi s t enur e as Par i sh Pr esi dent

because t he Par i sh needed t o respond t o request s f or di scover y. 2

Taf f ar o al l eges t hat McGoey was communi cat i ng wi t h hi m " i n a

pr i vi l eged set t i ng creat i ng a conf i dent i al i t y whi ch he vi ol at ed by

pr ovi di ng f al se i nf or mat i on t hat [ was] used t o obt ai n [ a sear ch]

war r ant . " Taf f ar o does not say t hat he t ol d McGoey t hat he was i n

possessi on of Par i sh government document s, but he does suggest t hat

at some poi nt he "of f er [ ed] t o del i ver anythi ng t hat mi ght be

needed. " Taf f ar o suggest s that at some poi nt t hat i nf or mat i on

( t hat he had government document s) , al ong wi t h t he l ocat i on of

Taf f ar o' s gover nment document s ( a st or age f aci l i t y i n Chal met t e)

was conveyed by McGoey t o Ser geant Gourgues. 3

1Wi l l i amM. McGoey i s an at t orney empl oyed by t he par i shi n t he Depar t ment of Legal Af f ai r s as t he l egal counsel wi t h t her esponsi bi l i t y of advi si ng t he pr esi dent .

2 Taf f ar o al l eges t hat McGoey' s communi cat i on wi t h Taf f ar o

r egar di ng out st andi ng di scover y i n t he DOJ l i t i gat i on "was a set - upf or Per al t a' s pr emedi t at ed and unaut hor i zed r ai d on Taf f ar o' sst or age uni t . "

3 J ar r od Gour gues i s a ser geant wi t h t he St . Ber nar dPar i sh Sher i f f ' s Of f i ce; Taf f ar o al l eges t hat he was "det ai l ed t oPeral t a" and was known has hi s bodyguard.

3




On Oct ober 22, 2012 Sgt . Gour gues and Cl ay Di l l on4 went t o a

st or age f aci l i t y i n Chal met t e ( Super Sel f St or age) and spoke t o t he

day manager , Car r i e Lul u. Not onl y di d Ms. Lul u i dent i f y Taf f ar o' s

l ocked st or age uni t , but she al so vol unt eer ed t hat she was st or i ng

t hr ee boxes i n her own st or age uni t t hat bel onged t o Taf f ar o " f r om

a pr evi ous Taf f aro move. " Gour gues and Di l l on sear ched t hose t hr ee

boxes and t ook t hemt o Per al t a' s of f i ce at t he gover nment compl ex.

The next day, on Oct ober 23, 2012, Sgt . Gour gues appl i ed t o a st at e

cour t j udge i n t he 34t h J udi ci al Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Par i sh of

St . Ber nar d f or a sear ch war r ant f or Taf f ar o' s st or age uni t i n

Chal met t e t o sei ze Par i sh gover nment r ecor ds. I n t he sear ch

war r ant appl i cat i on, 5 t he pur pose of sei zi ng t he pr oper t y

( descr i bed as "St . Ber nar d Par i sh Gover nment r ecor ds" ) was

expl ai ned t o be " r el at i ve t o an ongoi ng i nvest i gat i on i nvol vi ng a

vi ol at i on of Loui si ana RS 14: 132 ( i nj ur i ng publ i c r ecor ds)

i nvol vi ng a f or mer Par i sh Pr esi dent . " Accor di ng t o t he appl i cat i on

f or t he sear ch warr ant , dur i ng a t el ephone cal l between McGoey and

Taf f ar o on Oct ober 18, 2012, Taf f ar o was i nf or med t hat " t he j udge

was demandi ng f i l es" , and Sgt . Gour gues' r equest f or war r ant

4Cl ay Di l l on i s t he Di r ect or and Chi ef Compl i ance

I nspect or of t he Depart ment of Resi dent Servi ces and Compl i ance. Taf f ar o al l eges t hat Di l l on "expressed an ani mus t owar d Taf f ar o f ornot pr omot i ng hi m t o t he posi t i on t hat he was gi ven i n t he Per al t aadmi ni st r at i on. "

5 The appl i cat i on f or t he search war r ant i s one of severaldocument s at t ached t o Taf f ar o' s compl ai nt .

4




st at es, "Taf f ar o admi t t ed t hat he had r emoved [ gover nment ] f i l es

f r om t he government bui l di ng [ and another government empl oyee]

St eve Ler ouge. . . i nf or med [ Gour gues] t hat per Mr . Taf f ar o' s

i nst r uct i ons he was t o r emove t he f i l e boxes f r om t he pr esi dent ' s

of f i ce and st or e t hemi n a pr i vat e uni t l ocat ed at [ Chal met t e Super

Sel f St or age] . " And t her e wer e added " r easons and f act s"

suppor t i ng t he request f or t he sear ch war r ant :

Upon f ur t her i nvest i gat i on by mysel f , I spoke wi t h[ Par i sh] empl oyee, Steve Ler ouge, and he i nf ormed met hat per Mr . Taf f ar o' s i nst r uct i ons he was t o r emovet he f i l e boxes f r om t he pr esi dent ' s of f i ce and st or et hem i n a pr i vat e uni t l ocat ed at [ Chal met t e SuperSel f St orage] . Mr . Ler ouge st at ed he t hen pr oceededwi t h t he t ask of movi ng appr oxi matel y 20 mi sc. boxesof gover nment pr oper t y f r om t he pr esi dent ' s of f i ce t oChal met t e Super Sel f St or age. . . .On Oct ober 22nd, 2012, Cl ay Di l l on ( SBPG) empl oyee metwi t h Ms. Carr i e Lul u ( manager of Chal met t e Super Sel f St or age) r egar di ng t he. . . l ocat i on of unaccount ed f or[ gover nment ] f i l es. . . . Ms. Lul u advi sed Di l l on t hatMr . Taf f ar o vacat ed. . . one [ of t wo] st or age uni t [ s] , hel ef t behi nd. . . boxes [ t hat Taf f ar o sai d he woul d

r et r i eve but had yet t o do so] . Di l l on asked Ms. Lul ui f he coul d vi ew t he i t ems at i ssue i n or der t odetermi ne i f any of t hose i t ems were SBPG pr opert y.Di l l on observed [ Par i sh recor ds i n t he boxes possessedby Ms. Lul u] .

Taf f ar o al l eges t hat t he search war r ant was procur ed f r audul ent l y

and t he execut i on of t he warr ant vi ol ated hi s Four t h Amendment

r i ght s.

Accor di ng t o Taf f ar o, t he st at ed pur pose of assi st i ng t he

Uni t ed St at es i n t he DOJ l i t i gat i on and ensur i ng t hat Magi st r at e

J udge Shushan' s or der compel l i ng di scover y was obeyed was si mpl y a

pr et ext t o r ai d Taf f ar o' s st or age uni t . Nonet hel ess, Gour gues

5




execut ed t he sear ch warr ant l ater t hat same day. 6 Gour gues, al ong

wi t h ot her St . Ber nar d Par i sh empl oyees Di l l on, Cr ai g DeHar de, 7 and

Donal d Bour geoi s, J r . 8 ar r i ved at t he st or age uni t , at whi ch t i me

Di l l on cut t he l ock on Taf f ar o' s st or age uni t and al l par t i ci pant s

execut ed " t he r ai d" , t aki ng 19 boxes of document s back t o t he St .

Bernard Par i sh Government compl ex. The r ai d was apparent l y f i l med

by one of t he par t i ci pant s and, l at er , accor di ng t o Taf f ar o' s

compl ai nt , t he vi deo ( and emai l s al l egi ng ci r cumst ances about t he

document s i n the st or age uni t ) wer e di ssemi nat ed to medi a out l et s,

t he i nt er net , and t o Taf f ar o' s empl oyer , t he St at e of Loui si ana. 9

On November 8, 2012 Cr ai g Taf f ar o sued Peral t a, McGoey,

Gour gues, Di l l on, DeHar de, Bour geoi s, and t he f i ct i t i ous

pol i ceof f i cer 123@ymai l . com, asser t i ng ci vi l r i ght s vi ol at i ons under

42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1988; conspi r acy t o vi ol at e ci vi l r i ght s

6At some unspeci f i ed t i me, Taf f ar o says t hat Per al t acal l ed St . Ber nar d Par i sh Sher i f f J ames Pohl mann t o t el l hi m t hathe and Gour gues "execut ed a war r ant on Taf f ar o' s s t orage uni t . "Accor di ng t o Taf f ar o, t he Sher i f f was sur pr i sed t hat Gour gues wasi nvol ved i n execut i ng t he war r ant .

7Cr ai g DeHarde i s t he Di r ect or of t he Depart ment of Recreat i on, Cul t ur e, and Tour i sm f or St . Ber nar d Par i sh.

8Donal d R. Bour geoi s, J r . i s t he Di r ect or of t heDepar t ment of Recover y.

9One emai l i n par t i cul ar was sent by t he emai l addr esspol i ceof f i cer 123@ymai l . com. Taf f ar o bel i eves t hat Bour geoi s i s t heanonymous pol i ceof f i cer 123@ymai l . com, and that t he per son usi ngt hi s anonymous emai l addr ess has s l andered Taf f aro by sendi ng, onOct ober 24, 2012, t o the pr i nt and br oadcast medi a and t o Taf f ar o' sempl oyer , an anonymous emai l wi t h t he subj ect l i ne "Cr ai g Taf f ar oAl l egedl y Commi t s Fel ony Thef t " .

6




under § 1985; and var i ous st at e l aw cl ai ms, i ncl udi ng wr ongf ul

i nt er f er ence wi t h Taf f ar o' s car eer r i ght s, i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on

of emot i onal di st r ess, abuse of r i ght s, and abuse of pr ocess. 10

Taf f ar o seeks $750, 000 i n damages, as wel l as at t or ney' s f ees,

cost s, and $2, 000, 000 i n puni t i ve damages. On J anuary 19, 2013

Taf f ar o f i l ed an amended compl ai nt , addi ng St . Ber nar d Par i sh

Government ( and St . Bernard Par i sh) as a def endant . On Febr uary

20, 2013 Taf f ar o vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed hi s cl ai m pur suant t o 42

U. S. C. § 1985 f or conspi r acy t o vi ol at e ci vi l r i ght s.

Fi ve mot i ons ar e now pendi ng: Per al t a seeks di smi ssal of t he

cl ai ms asser t ed agai nst hi m; def endant s McGoey, Di l l on, DeHar de,

Bour geoi s, and t he St . Bernard Par i sh Government seek di smi ssal of

t he cl ai ms asser t ed agai nst t hem and al so seek to st r i ke cer t ai n

cl ai ms under La. Code of Ci v. P. ar t . 971. Taf f ar o r equest s t hat

t he Cour t i ssue a gag or der .

10Accor di ng t o Taf f ar o: "The ' . . . ongoi ng i nvest i gat i onr egar di ng vi ol at i on of La. R. S. 14: 132 ( i nj ur i ng publ i c r ecor ds) . . . 'was a ruse used by Per al t a i n concer t wi t h McGoey, Gour gues,Di l l on, DeHar de, Bour geoi s , and t he f i c t i t i ouspol i ceof f i cer 123@ymai l . com t o sl ander Taf f ar o and r ui n hi s car eeras a publ i c ser vant . "

Ther e ar e al so many ext r aneous f act s al l eged i n t hecompl ai nt . For exampl e, Taf f ar o al l eges t hat when Per al t a beganhi s t enur e as Par i sh Pr esi dent , on J anuar y 10, 2012, Per al t ai nst r uct ed I . T. Di r ect or J ames Mur r ay t o "enabl e" Taf f ar o' s emai l

account and pr ovi de Per al t a a new password. Even t hough Mur r aycompl i ed, he was f i r ed seven days l at er . Taf f ar o al so al l eges t hatPer al t a "engaged i n a pat t er n of conf r ont i ng empl oyees" bysuggest i ng t hat he knew t hey suppor t ed Taf f ar o and t hat Per al t a"of t en demot [ ed] or f i r [ ed] t he empl oyee quest i oned, i ncl udi ng t heout r i ght f i r i ng of Af r o- Amer i cans La Koshi a Rober t s, J ames Mur r ayand Tyr one Ben. "

7




I .A.

Rul e 12( b) ( 6) of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e al l ows

a par t y t o move f or di smi ssal of a compl ai nt f or f ai l ur e t o st at e

a cl ai m upon whi ch r el i ef can be gr ant ed. Such a mot i on i s rar el y

gr ant ed because i t i s vi ewed wi t h di sf avor . See Lowr ey v. Tex. A

& M Uni v. Sys. , 117 F. 3d 242, 247 ( 5t h Ci r . 1997) ( quot i ng Kai ser

Al umi num& Chem. Sal es, I nc. v. Avondal e Shi pyar ds, I nc. , 677 F. 2d

1045, 1050 ( 5t h Ci r . 1982) ) .

Under Rul e 8( a) ( 2) of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e,

a pl eadi ng must cont ai n a "shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai m

showi ng t hat t he pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef . " Ashcrof t v.

I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678- 79 ( 2009) ( ci t i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 8) . "[ T] he

pl eadi ng st andar d Rul e 8 announces does not r equi r e ' det ai l ed

f act ual al l egat i ons, ' but i t demands mor e t han an unador ned, t he-

def endant - unl awf ul l y- har med- me accusat i on. " I d. at 678 ( ci t i ngBel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 555 ( 2007) ) .

I n consi der i ng a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on, t he Cour t “accept s

‘ al l wel l - pl eaded f act s as t r ue, vi ewi ng t hem i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f . ’ ” See Mar t i n K. Eby Const r . Co. v.

Dal l . Ar ea Rapi d Tr ansi t , 369 F. 3d 464 ( 5t h Ci r . 2004) ( quot i ng

J ones v. Gr eni nger , 188 F. 3d 322, 324 ( 5th Ci r . 1999) ) . But , i n

deci di ng whet her di smi ssal i s war r ant ed, t he Cour t wi l l not accept

concl usor y al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt as t r ue. Kai ser , 677 F. 2d

at 1050. I ndeed, t he Cour t must f i r st i dent i f y al l egat i ons t hat

8




ar e concl usor y and, t hus, not ent i t l ed t o t he assumpt i on of t r ut h.

Ashcr of t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678- 79 ( 2009) . A cor ol l ar y: l egal

concl usi ons “must be suppor t ed by f act ual al l egat i ons. ” I d. at

678. Assumi ng t he ver aci t y of t he wel l - pl eaded f act ual

al l egat i ons, t he Cour t must t hen det er mi ne “whet her t hey pl ausi bl y

gi ve r i se t o an ent i t l ement t o r el i ef . ” I d. at 679.

“‘ To sur vi ve a mot i on t o di smi ss, a compl ai nt must cont ai n

suf f i ci ent f actual mat t er , accept ed as t r ue, t o st at e a cl ai m t o

r el i ef t hat i s pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. ’ ” Gonzal ez v. Kay, 577 F. 3d

600, 603 ( 5t h Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng I qbal , 556 U. S. at 678) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . “Factual al l egat i ons must be enough t o

r ai se a r i ght t o r el i ef above t he specul at i ve l evel , on t he

assumpt i on t hat al l t he al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt ar e t r ue ( even

i f doubt f ul i n f act ) . ” Bel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544,

555 ( 2007) ( ci t at i ons and f oot not e omi t t ed) . “A cl ai m has f aci al

pl ausi bi l i t y when t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads f actual cont ent t hat al l ows

t he cour t t o dr aw t he reasonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he def endant i s

l i abl e f or t he mi sconduct al l eged. ” I qbal , 556 U. S. at 678 ( “The

pl ausi bi l i t y st andar d i s not aki n t o a ‘ pr obabi l i t y r equi r ement , ’

but i t asks f or mor e t han a sheer possi bi l i t y that a def endant has

acted unl awf ul l y. ”) . Thi s i s a “cont ext - speci f i c t ask t hat

r equi r es t he r evi ewi ng cour t t o dr aw on i t s j udi ci al exper i ence and

common sense. ” I d. at 679. “Where a compl ai nt pl eads f act s that

ar e mer el y consi st ent wi t h a def endant ’ s l i abi l i t y, i t st ops shor t

9




of t he l i ne bet ween possi bi l i t y and pl ausi bi l i t y of ent i t l ement t o

r el i ef . ” I d. at 678 ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) ( ci t i ng Twombl y,

550 U. S. at 557) . “[ A] pl ai nt i f f ’ s obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de t he

‘ gr ounds’ of hi s ‘ ent i t l e[ ment ] t o r el i ef ’ ”, t hus, “requi r es mor e

t han l abel s and concl usi ons, and a f or mul ai c r eci t at i on of t he

el ement s of a cause of act i on wi l l not do. ” Twombl y, 550 U. S. at

555 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Fi nal l y, “[ w] hen r evi ewi ng a mot i on t o di smi ss, a di st r i ct

cour t ‘ must consi der t he compl ai nt i n i t s ent i r et y, as wel l as

ot her sour ces or di nar i l y exami ned when r ul i ng on Rul e 12( b) ( 6)

mot i ons t o di smi ss, i n par t i cul ar , document s i ncor por at ed i nt o t he

compl ai nt by ref erence, and mat t ers of whi ch a cour t may t ake

j udi ci al not i ce. ” Funk v. St r yker Cor p. , 631 F. 3d 777, 783 ( 5t h

Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Tel l abs, I nc. v. Makor I ssues & Ri ght s, Ltd. ,

551 U. S. 308, 322 ( 2007) ) .

B.

Rul e 9( b) of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e i mposes a

“hei ght ened pl eadi ng st andar d”, and pr ovi des t hat when al l egi ng

f r aud “a par t y must st at e wi t h par t i cul ar i t y t he ci r cumst ances

const i t ut i ng f r aud or mi st ake. . . Mal i ce, i nt ent , knowl edge, and

ot her condi t i ons of a per son’ s mi nd may be al l eged gener al l y. ”

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 9( b) . “Rul e 9( b) i s an except i on t o Rul e 8( a) ’ s

si mpl i f i ed pl eadi ng t hat cal l s f or a ‘ shor t and pl ai n st at ement of

t he cl ai m. ’ ” U. S. ex rel . Gr ubbs v. Kannegant i , 565 F. 3d 180, 185

10




( 5t h Ci r . 2009) . “The par t i cul ar i t y demanded by Rul e 9( b) ”, t he

Fi f t h Ci r cui t i nst r uct s, “i s suppl ement al t o t he Supr eme

Cour t ’ s. . . i nt er pr et at i on of Rul e 8( a) r equi r i ng ‘ enough f act s

[ t aken as t r ue] t o st at e a cl ai mt o r el i ef t hat i s pl ausi bl e on i t s

f ace. ’ ” I d. ( ci t i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 570) .

To sat i sf y Rul e 9(b) , a pl ai nt i f f must ( 1) speci f y t he

st at ement s al l eged t o be f r audul ent , ( 2) i dent i f y t he speaker or

aut hor of t he st atement s, ( 3) st ate when and where the st atement s

were made, and ( 4) st ate why t he st atement s were f r audul ent .

Her mann Hol di ngs Lt d. v. Lucent Technol ogi es, I nc. , 302 F. 3d 552,

564- 65 (5t h Ci r . 2002) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The Fi f t h Ci r cui t

commands t hat Rul e 9( b) be i nt er pr et ed st r i ct l y ( i d. ) , but

i nst r uct s cour t s t o be mi ndf ul t hat “Rul e 9( b) suppl ement s but does

not suppl ant Rul e 8( a) ’ s not i ce pl eadi ng[ ; ] Rul e 9( b) does not

‘ r ef l ect a subscri pt i on t o f act pl eadi ng’ and r equi r es onl y

‘ si mpl e, conci se, and di r ect ’ al l egat i ons of t he ‘ ci r cumst ances

const i t ut i ng f r aud, ’ whi ch af t er Twombl y must make r el i ef

pl ausi bl e, not mer el y concei vabl e, when t aken as t r ue. ”

Kannegant i , 565 F. 3d at 185- 86. Fi nal l y, t he Cour t must

r eal i st i cal l y obser ve t hat “Rul e 9( b) ’ s ul t i mat e meani ng i s

cont ext - speci f i c, and t hus t her e i s no si ngl e const r uct i on of Rul e

9( b) t hat appl i es i n al l cont ext s. ” I d. at 188.

I I .A.

Ti t l e 42, U. S. C. § 1983 cr eates a damages r emedy f or t he

11




vi ol at i on of f eder al const i t ut i onal or st at ut or y r i ght s under col or

of st at e l aw; i t pr ovi des:

Ever y per son who, under col or of any st at ut e,or di nance, r egul at i on, cust om, or usage, of any St at e

. . . subj ect s, or causes t o be subj ected, any . . .per son wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on t her eof t o t hedepr i vat i on of any r i ght s, pr i vi l eges, or i mmuni t i essecur ed by t he Const i t ut i on and l aws, shal l be l i abl et o t he par t y i nj ur ed.

To est abl i sh § 1983 l i abi l i t y, t he pl ai nt i f f must sat i sf y t hree

el ement s:

( 1) depr i vat i on of a r i ght s ecur ed by the U. S.Const i t ut i on or f eder al l aw,

(2) that occur r ed under col or of st ate l aw, and( 3) was caused by a st at e act or .

Vi ct or i a W. v. Lar pent er , 369 F. 3d 475, 482 ( 5t h Ci r . 2004)

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Taf f ar o al l eges t hat he was t wi ce depr i ved of hi s r i ght t o

be f r ee f r omunr easonabl e sear ches and sei zur es; he cl ai ms t hat t he

def endant s, al l government actors, t ook thr ee boxes of document s hehad l ef t behi nd i n a st or age uni t , wi t hout a war r ant , and t hat t hey

obt ai ned a sear ch war r ant f or hi s st or age uni t under t he f al se

pr et ense t hat i t was sought r el at i ve t o an ongoi ng i nvest i gat i on

i nvol vi ng a vi ol at i on of La. R. S. 14: 132.

The Four t h Amendment t o t he U. S. Const i t ut i on prot ect s

agai nst unr easonabl e government searches:

The r i ght of t he peopl e t o be secur e i n t hei r personshouses, paper s, and ef f ect s, agai nst unr easonabl esear ches and sei zur es, shal l not be vi ol at ed, and noWar r ant s shal l i ssue, but upon pr obabl e cause,suppor t ed by Oat h or af f i r mat i on, and par t i cul ar l y

12




descr i bi ng t he pl ace t o be sear ched, and t he per son ort hi ngs t o be sei zed.

"The touchst one of Four t h Amendment anal ysi s i s whether a person

has a ' const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed r easonabl e expect at i on of

pr i vacy. ' " Cal i f or ni a v. Ci r aol o, 476 U. S. 207, ( 1985) ( quot i ng

Kat z v. Uni t ed St at es, 389 U. S. 347, 360 ( 1967) ( Har l an, J . ,

concur r i ng) ) . Whet her an i ndi vi dual may seek r ef uge i n t he Four t h

Amendment "depends not upon a pr oper t y r i ght i n t he i nvaded pl ace

but upon whether t he person who cl ai ms t he pr otect i on of t he

[ Four t h] Amendment has a l egi t i mat e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he

i nvaded pl ace. " Rakas v. I l l i noi s, 439 U. S. 128, 143 ( 1978) .

Gener al l y speaki ng, absent a war r ant , consent , or par t i cul ar

exi gent ci r cumst ances, l aw enf or cement of f i cer s act unr easonabl y

and, t her ef or e, unconst i t ut i onal l y, when t hey ent er a pr i vat e home

or ot herwi se conduct a sear ch of an owner ' s pr opert y. See Donovan

v. Dewey, 452 U. S. 594, 598- 99 ( 1981) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Gi vent he Supr eme Cour t ' s acknowl edgment r espect i ng " t he Four t h

Amendment ' s st r ong pr ef erence f or searches conduct ed pur suant t o a

war r ant ", cour t s ar e caut i oned "not [ t o] i nval i dat e . . . war r ant [ s]

by i nt er pr et i ng af f i davi t [ s] i n a hyper t echni cal , r at her t han a

commonsense, manner . " I l l i noi s v. Gat es, 462 U. S. 213, 236

( 1983) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( "Ref l ect i ng t hi s pr ef er ence f or t he

war r ant pr ocess, t he t r adi t i onal st andar d f or r evi ew of an i ssui ng

magi st r at e' s pr obabl e cause det er mi nat i on has been that so l ong as

t he magi st r at e had a ' subst ant i al basi s f or . . . concl ud[ i ng] " t hat

13




a search woul d uncover evi dence of wr ongdoi ng, t he Four t h Amendment

r equi r es no mor e") .

B.

Taf f ar o char ges t hat t he def endant s conspi r ed t o vi ol at e hi s

Four t h Amendment r i ght s when t hey sei zed t hr ee boxes of St . Bernard

Par i sh Government document s, wi t hout a warr ant , and, agai n, when

t hey " r ummaged" t hr ough hi s personal st orage uni t and sei zed 19

boxes of St . Bernar d Par i sh Gover nment document s based on a war r ant

t hat was obt ai ned under t he " f al se pr et ense" t hat he was i nj ur i ng

publ i c r ecor ds i n vi ol at i on of st at e l aw; he al l eges t hat t he

subpoena power of t he f eder al cour t i n t he DOJ l i t i gat i on i nst ead

shoul d have been used t o obt ai n t he document s. By thei r mot i ons t o

di smi ss, def endant s Per al t a, McGoey, Di l l on, Bour geoi s, Dehar de,

and t he St . Bernard Par i sh Government 11 chal l enge whet her Taf f ar o

pl ausi bl y has st at ed a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on: i n par t i cul ar ,

t hey f i r st cont end t hat t he sei zur e of t he t hr ee boxes i n Ms.

Lul u' s possessi on was not unr easonabl e because t hose boxes had been

abandoned by Taf f aro; second, t hey cont end t hat Taf f aro has not

al l eged t hat t he sear ch of hi s s t or age uni t was conduct ed pur suant

t o a f aci al l y i nval i d sear ch war r ant or t hat t he st at e cour t j udge

l acked pr obabl e cause i n i ssui ng t he war r ant and t hat , t her ef or e,

t he "r ai d" on hi s st or age uni t l i kewi se passes const i t ut i onal

11 The onl y def endant t hat has not r equest ed di smi ssalbased on Rul e 12( b) ( 6) i s Sgt . Gour gues.

14




must er . 12

Taf f ar o count er s t hat t hese deter mi nat i ons ar e t oo f act -

i nt ensi ve and must awai t summary j udgment . Taf f aro' s argument i s

t ant amount t o suggest i ng t hat , as a mat t er of l aw, because Four t h

Amendment i nqui r i es are gener al l y cont ext - speci f i c and of t en

r equi r e an exami nat i on of t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances,

compl ai nt s al l egi ng Four t h Amendment vi ol at i ons must wi t hst and

pl eadi ng chal l enges under Rul e 12( b) ( 6) . The Cour t di sagr ees.

Taf f ar o i gnor es t he “cont ext - speci f i c t ask t hat r equi r es t he

r evi ewi ng cour t t o dr aw on i t s j udi ci al exper i ence and common

sense” when exami ni ng t he t echni cal suf f i ci ency of f act ual

al l egat i ons agai nst t he f l exi bl e pl eadi ng st andar ds. I qbal , 556

U. S. at 679.

1. Al l egat i ons of Unr easonabl e Sei zure, or Abandonment ?

Def endant s McGoey, Di l l on, DeHarde, Bour geoi s, and t he St .

Bernar d Par i sh Gover nment cont end t hat Taf f ar o has f ai l ed, as a

mat t er of l aw, t o st at e a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on wi t h r espect

t o t he war r ant l ess sei zur e of t hr ee boxes i n Ms. Lul u' s possessi on

on Oct ober 22, 2012. 13 They i nvoke t he doct r i ne of abandonment .

"To demonst r at e a l egi t i mat e expect at i on of pr i vacy, " t he

12Not abl y, t he def endant s do not at t hi s t i me i nvokequal i f i ed i mmuni t y; t hey addr ess onl y whet her Taf f ar o has s t at ed aconsti t ut i onal vi ol at i on.

13By hi s mot i on, Per al t a cont ends t hat Taf f ar o has f ai l edt o al l ege any f act s suppor t i ng hi s i nvol vement i n t he al l egedunl awf ul sei zure "because he had none, nor was t here any sei zure. "

15




Fi f t h Ci r cui t has obser ved, "a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat [ ] he has a

subj ect i ve expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he pr emi ses sear ched and t hat

h[ i s] expect at i on of pr i vacy i s one t hat soci et y woul d r ecogni ze as

obj ect i vel y l egi t i mat e. " Bl anchar d v. Loner o, 452 Fed. Appx. 577,

583 (5t h Ci r . Dec. 7, 2011) ( unpubl i shed) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Ri azco, 91 F. 3d 752, 754 ( 5t h Ci r . 1996) ) . Si gni f i cant l y, and

keepi ng t r ue t o t he common sense appr oach t o t he Four t h Amendment ,

" [ a] n i ndi vi dual . . . has no expect at i on of pr i vacy over abandoned

pr oper t y. " See i d. ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Edwar ds, 441 F. 2d 749,

752 (5t h Ci r . 1971) ( "I t i s cl ear t hat t hi s per sonal r i ght t o Four t h

Amendment pr ot ect i on of pr oper t y agai nst sear ch and sei zur e i s l ost

when t he pr oper t y i s abandoned. " ) . For Four t h Amendment pur poses,

an i ndi vi dual has abandoned pr oper t y when he "vol unt ar i l y

di scar d[ s] , [ l eaves behi nd] , or ot her wi se r el i nqui she[ s] hi s

i nt er est i n t he pr oper t y i n quest i on so that he coul d no l onger

r et ai n a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy wi t h r egar d t o i t at t he

t i me of t he sear ch. " See i d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Col ber t ,

474 F. 2d 174, 176 (5t h Ci r . 1973) ( en banc) ) .

Wi t h r espect t o t he cl ai m of war r ant l ess sei zur e of t hr ee

boxes on Oct ober 22, 2012, Taf f ar o al l eges:

Di l l on was l i st ed by Gour gues as havi ng i ni t i al l y gone

t o t he st or age f aci l i t y on Oct ober 22, 2012, wi t hGour gues, wher e t he t wo i nt er r ogat ed Car r i e Lul u, t heday manager ; dur i ng t he i nt er r ogat i on, Lul u wasr equest ed t o i dent i f y Taf f ar o' s l ocked st or age uni t ,whi ch she di d; when Lul u vol unt eer ed t hat she wasst or i ng t hr ee boxes i n her uni t f r om a pr evi ous Taf f ar o move, Di l l on and Gour gues searched t hose t hree

16




boxes and t hen t r anspor t ed t he thr ee boxes t o theof f i ces of Per al t a and Gour gues at t he governmentcompl ex; t he i ni t i al sei zur e of t he 3 boxes l ef t i nMr s. Lul u' s uni t const i t ut ed an i nval i d war r ant l esssear ch and sei zur e. . . ; on pr i or occasi ons, Di l l onexpr essed an ani mus t oward Taf f aro f or not pr omot i ng

hi m t o t he posi t i on t hat he was gi ven i n t he Per al t aadmi ni st r at i on. 14

The def endant s cont end t hat Taf f ar o' s al l egat i ons f al l shor t

of maki ng out a pl ausi bl e Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on based on the

war r ant l ess Oct ober 22, 2012 sei zur e of t he thr ee boxes i n Ms.

Lul u' s possessi on. The Cour t agr ees.

14 The Cour t not es t hat Taf f ar o at t aches t o hi s compl ai ntt he appl i cat i on f or t he sear ch war r ant t hat was obt ai ned on Oct ober23, 2012, t he day af t er Gour gues and Di l l on are al l eged t o havef i r st gone t o t he st or age f aci l i t y; i n suppor t of hi s r equest f ora sear ch warr ant , Gour gues st ated under oat h:

On Oct ober 22nd, 2012, Cl ay Di l l on ( SBPG)empl oyee met wi t h Ms. Car r i e Lul u ( manager of Chal met t e Super Sel f St orage) r egar di ng t hedi sposi t i on/ l ocat i on of unaccount ed f r o SBPGf i l es. Di l l on advi sed Ms. Lul u t hat he

bel i eves t hose f i l es mi ght be l ocat ed i n oneof t wo st or age uni t s l eased by f or mer Par i shPr esi dent Cr ai g Taf f ar o. Ms. Lul u advi sedDi l l on t hat Mr . Taf f ar o no l onger l eases bot huni t s. She f ur t her advi sed t hat when Mr . Taf f ar o vacat ed t he one uni t , he l ef t behi nd anumber of boxes. Ms. Lul u st at ed t o Di l l ont hat she cont acted Mr . Taf f ar o and asked hi mi f he wi shed t o r et r i eve t hose i t ems l ef tbehi nd. Mr . Taf f ar o st at ed t hat he woul dr et r i eve t hose i t ems. Ms. Lul u t hen advi sedDi l l on t hat Mr . Taf f ar o has not si nce

r et r i eved t hose i t ems. Di l l on t hen asked Ms.Lul u i f he coul d vi ew t he i t ems at i ssue i nor der t o det er mi ne i f any of t hose i t ems wer eSBPG pr oper t y. Di l l on obser ved, i n mul t i pl eboxes, t i me sheets f or cur r ent and f ormer SBPGempl oyees as wel l as document r el at i ve t o t he"Redf i sh- cup" t our nament .

17




The Cour t agai n not es t hat Taf f ar o f ai l s t o meani ngf ul l y

oppose the def endant s' Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i ons, di smi ssi vel y

char act er i zi ng t he mot i ons as " f act - i nt ensi ve. . . summar y j udgment

mot i ons i n di sgui se", when he woul d be bet t er - served by submi t t i ng

a subst ant i ve r esponse t o t he l egal argument s advanced by t he

def endant s. 15 But t he Cour t need onl y r esort t o t he al l egat i ons of

Taf f ar o' s compl ai nt t o det er mi ne t hat he has f ai l ed t o st at e a

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on wi t h r espect t o the Oct ober 22 sei zur e of

t he t hr ee boxes. Taf f aro advances no argument t o suppor t how he

mi ght have a l egi t i mat e expect at i on of pr i vacy t hat woul d pr ot ect

document s i n boxes t hat he, i n hi s own words i n hi s compl ai nt ,

" l ef t i n Ms. Lul u' s [st or age] uni t . "16 The pl ausi bi l i t y of hi s own

concl usor y al l egat i ons t hat t hi s sei zur e "const i t ut ed an i nval i d

war r ant l ess sear ch and sei zure" i s bet r ayed by hi s own f act ual

al l egat i ons. Thus, as a mat t er of l aw, Taf f ar o has f ai l ed t o st at e

a § 1983 cl ai m based on a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on ar i si ng f r om

t he Oct ober 22 "sei zur e"; t hi s cl ai m i s di smi ssed. 17

15 The Cour t wi l l not i ndul ge counsel ' s grat ui t ouscomment ary and charact er i zat i ons of t hei r opponent s and, agai n,ur ges t he par t i es t o f ocus on t he l egal i ssues pr esent ed f orr esol ut i on.

16Li kewi se, Taf f ar o nowher e al l eges t hat Ms. Lul u f ai l ed

t o consent t o t he sear ch and sei zur e of t he 3 boxes i n herpossessi on, or t hat she coul d not have done so.

17I n hi s r equest f or di smi ssal , Per al t a cont ends t hat Taf f ar o' s al l egat i ons do not i mpl i cat e hi m i n t he war r ant l esssei zur e, except f or concl usor y al l egat i ons and suggest i onsconcer ni ng Per al t a' s pr omi se t o r et al i at e agai nst hi m and ot her

18




2. Al l egat i ons of Fr audul ent l y Obt ai ned War r ant ?

Def endant s McGoey, Di l l on, DeHarde, Bour geoi s, and t he St .

Ber nar d Par i sh Gover nment next cont end t hat Taf f ar o has f ai l ed, as

a mat t er of l aw, t o st at e a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on as t o them

wi t h r espect t o t he sear ch and sei zur e - - " t he r ai d" - - conduct ed

on Oct ober 23, 2012 pur suant t o a warr ant i ssued by a st ate cour t

j udge. And Peral t a, agai n, cont ends t hat Taf f ar o f ai l s t o asser t

f act ual al l egat i ons connect i ng hi mt o t he al l eged unconst i t ut i onal

sear ch and sei zur e. 18

al l egat i ons suggest i ng t hat Gour gues "was Per al t a' s hi ghest r anki ngai de- de- camp. . . per sonal dr i ver and hi s bodyguar d. " Theseal l egat i ons, Per al t a cont ends, ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o al l ege per sonali nvol vement by Per al t a i n t he Oct ober 22 sei zur e. The Cour tagr ees. Except f or hi s posi t i on as pr esi dent and gener i cal l egat i ons suggest i ve of hi s vendet t a agai nst Taf f ar o, no f act sl i nk Per al t a to t he war r ant l ess Oct ober 22 sear ch and sei zur e i nMs. Lul u' s possessi on. Thi s can al so be sai d f or t he ot herdef endant s not al l eged t o be di r ect l y i nvol ved i n t he sear ch andsei zur e of t he thr ee boxes ( al l def endant s except Gour gues and

Di l l on) . Because t he Cour t has det er mi ned, as a mat t er of l aw,t hat Taf f ar o f ai l s t o stat e a consti t ut i onal vi ol at i on r esul t i ngf r om t he Oct ober 22 i nci dent , t he Cour t need not scour t heal l egat i ons of t he compl ai nt or i t s at t achment s i n an at t empt t oparse each al l egat i on agai nst each def endant concer ni ng t heconst i t ut i onal i t y of t he Oct ober 22 i nci dent . Because Taf f ar opl eads f acts consi st ent onl y wi t h abandonment of t he thr ee boxes,hi s expect at i on of pr i vacy wi t h r espect t o t hose boxes wasdi mi ni shed; he f ai l s t o st at e a cl ai m f or a Four t h Amendmentvi ol at i on agai nst t he movant s, i ncl udi ng Per l t a, McGoey, Di l l on,DeHarde, Bour geoi s, and St . Bernard Par i sh Government .

18Speci f i cal l y addr essi ng Per al t a' s cont ent i on t hat Taf f ar o has f ai l ed t o al l ege suf f i ci ent f act s l i nki ng hi m t o aFour t h Amendment vi ol at i on, t he Cour t agr ees. Taf f ar o al l eges t hatPer al t a was det er mi ned t o r et al i at e agai nst Taf f ar o and t hat he di dso by or chest r at i ng " t he r ai d" on hi s st or age uni t . But actualf act ual al l egat i ons suppor t i ng Taf f ar o' s concl usi on ar e l acki ng. Taf f ar o si mpl y asser t s al l egat i ons t hat ar e suggest i ve of

19




Taf f ar o r esponds t o t hese r equest s f or di smi ssal by br i ef i ng

t he Cour t on t he l aw of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, whi ch has not yet even

been r ai sed by def endant s, and by ref er r i ng t he Cour t t o t he vi deo

of t he " r ai d" , whi ch he says r eveal s:

THE ULTIMATE TIE-BREAKER IN ANY GIVEN ARGUMENT IS

IMPOSSIBLE TO RESIST: A SIMPLE SUBPOENA FROM THE DOJ

LITIGATION TO TAFFARO OR TO THE STORAGE COMPANY WOULD

HAVE AVOIDED THE REPUTATION-CARNAGE PRESENTLY BEFORE

THE COURT.

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . He al so not es i n hi s opposi t i on paper s

that:

Taf f ar o l ef t of f i ce i n December 2011. Al l def endant sknew or shoul d have known that he packed some f i l esand st or ed t hem at t he subj ect st or age uni t .A SUBPOENA IN THE DOJ LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUFFICED.

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . And, agai n, he suggest s "[ w] e ver i l y

bel i eve t he def ense mot i ons ar e f act - i nt ensi ve and t hat t he Cour t

shoul d so decl ar e. "19 To t he extent t hat t he def endant s' s f act ual

pr esent at i ons i ncl ude f act s not al l eged by Taf f ar o i n hi s compl ai nt

r et al i at or y mot i ve, or ar e ot her wi se suggest i ve t hat Per al t amast er mi nded t he rai d ( by al l egi ng t hat Gour goues was Per al t a' s"ai de- de- camp" and "bodyguar d") . But even i f Taf f ar o had pl ausi bl yal l eged a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on, he f ai l ed t o al l ege f acts t hat ,i f pr oved, woul d suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat Per al t a caused aconst i t ut i onal depr i vat i on.

19He cont i nues:

We admi t t hat we were anxi ous t o br i ng an endt o cal umny i l l - deserved by a good man who hasdevot ed hi s pr of essi onal l i f e t o hel pi ng t hosewho needed hel p and gui di ng t hose who neededgui dance. The conduct of t he def endant sr equi r es t he most sever e of sanct i ons and t heharshest of puni t i ve damages al l owed by l aw.

20




( or i n t he mat er i al s he at t aches t o hi s compl ai nt ) , t he Cour t

di sr egar ds t hose asser t i ons. But , cont r ar y t o Taf f ar o' s i nsi st ence

t hat t he def endant s' cont ent i ons are best r esol ved i n t he cont ext

of summar y j udgment mot i on pr act i ce, t he def endant s ar e ent i t l ed to

chal l enge t he t echni cal suf f i ci ency of Taf f ar o' s compl ai nt . And so

t he Cour t t ur ns t o t he al l egat i ons of Taf f ar o' s compl ai nt , t hi s

t i me concerni ng t he Oct ober 23, 2012 sear ch of hi s s t or age uni t :

[ T] he obt ai ni ng of a sear ch war r ant under t he f al sepr et ense t hat i t was sought ". . . r el at i ve t o an ongoi ngi nvest i gat i on i nvol vi ng vi ol at i on ( si c) of Loui si anaR. S. 14: 132 ( i nj ur i ng publ i c r ecor ds) . . . " i mpai r ed Taf f ar o' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s pur suant t o t he Four t hAmendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. . . . [ T] her ai d conduct ed on Oct ober 23, 2012. . . was t hecul mi nat i on of a pat t er n of r et al i at i on by Per al t aagai nst Taf f ar o because Taf f ar o f i r ed Per al t a as CAOi n Oct ober , 2008, . . . and because Taf f ar o campai gnedagai nst Per al t a i n 2011, bot h of whi ch wer e act i vi t i esconst i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed by the Fi r st Amendment t ot he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. . .

McGoey communi cat ed wi t h Taf f aro i n connect i on wi t h

di scover y i n t he DOJ l i t i gat i on, and was doi ng so i na pr i vi l eged set t i ng creat i ng a conf i dent i al i t y whi chhe vi ol at ed by pr ovi di ng f al se i nf or mat i on t hatGour gues used t o obt ai n t he warr ant and t o i mpl i cat e Taf f ar o. . . . [ Accor di ng t o mat er i al s at t ached t o t hecompl ai nt , Gour gues st at ed i n a nar r at i ve i nconnect i on wi t h hi s i nvest i gat i on t hat McGoey t ol d hi mt hat Taf f aro sai d he was i n possessi on of governmentdocument s t hat were needed i n pendi ng cases. Gour guesst at ed t hat McGoey al so sai d t hat Taf f ar o t ol d hi mdur i ng a t el ephone cal l t hat he di d i ndeed haveor i gi nal government document s i n hi s possessi on and

had no i nt ent on ret ur ni ng them. ]20

20 To t he ext ent t hat t he mat er i al s at t ached t o t hecompl ai nt cont r adi ct f act ual al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt , t heCour t does not r esol ve the di sput e but , i nst ead, consi der s t heal l egat i ons of t he compl ai nt t o be t r ue.

21




McGoey knew. . . t hat t he f al se i nf or mat i on he passed ont o Gour gues, i f i t wer e t r ue, r equi r ed McGoey toi nf or m DOJ and t he cour t of hi s di scover y; becauseMcGoey went t o Gour gues and not DOJ or t he court , hebr eached hi s dut y t o pr ovi de i nf or mat i on i n t he DOJl i t i gat i on on a cont i nui ng basi s; McGoey al so vi ol at ed

t he Rul es of Pr of essi onal Conduct . . . by f ai l i ng t ocommuni cat e [ and] conceal i ng f r om t he f eder al cour tt he f act s he al l egedl y di scover ed. . . . On Oct ober 20,2012, McGoey sent Taf f ar o a decept i vel y- wor ded l et t erdat ed Oct ober 19, 2012 on. . . Per al t a Par i sh Pr esi dentl et t er head f al sel y i ndi cat i ng t hat ". . . t he Par i sh hasbeen ser ved wi t h a request f or pr oduct i on of document swhi ch i ncl udes a request f or communi cat i ons f r om yout o var i ous par t i es. . . " [ I ] n t r ut h and i n f actMagi st r at e- J udge Shushan' s. . . Or der i n t he DOJl i t i gat i on sai d not hi ng of t he sor t , gr ant i ng t he DOJmot i on t o compel di scover y. . . on J ul y 12, 2012.Notwi t hst andi ng t hat Oct ober 19, 2012 was t he cour t -i mposed deadl i ne. . . McGoey' s decept i ve l et t er was sentt o Taf f aro by t he two sl owest means of communi cat i on[ and] was not seen by Taf f ar o unt i l he ar r i ved at hi sr esi dence on 5: 00 p. m. , Monday, Oct ober 22, 2012,af t er whi ch t i me, Taf f ar o made mul t i pl e phone cal l s t oMcGoey wi t h t he i nt ent t o f ul f i l l hi s of f er t o del i veranyt hi ng t hat mi ght be needed; none of t he cal l s madeOct ober 22 wer e ret ur ned; i n t r ut h and i n f act ,McGoey' s l et t er had nothi ng t o do wi t h Magi st r at e- J udge Shushan' s Or der and was a set - up f or Per al t a' s

pr emedi t at ed and unaut hor i zed r ai d on Taf f ar o' sst or age uni t , consi st ent wi t h Per al t a' s r et al i at or ymodus oper andi si nce Taf f ar o f i r ed hi m i n Oct ober of 2008. . . .

J ar r od Gour gues i s a ser geant wi t h t he St . Ber nar dPar i sh Sher i f f ' s of f i ce [ who] was "det ai l ed" t oPer al t a, meani ng t hat he was Per al t a' s hi ghest r anki ngai de- de- camp. . . . Gour gues, who or chest r at ed t heOct ober 23 r ai d wi t h Per al t a, occupi ed an adj acentof f i ce t o Per al t a. . . . Gour gues' acti vi t i es wer e notaut hor i zed by Sher i f f J ames Pohl mann nor known t o have

occur r ed unt i l Per al t a cal l ed Pohl mann [ af t er t herai d] .

. . . Di l l on was t he one who cut t he l ock t o Taf f ar o' suni t on Oct ober 23, 2012 [ and] Bour geoi s. . . pl ayed akey rol e i n t he Oct ober 23, 2012 r ai d [ and] al soengaged i n Per al t a' s pat t er n of syst emat i c r et al i at i on

22




and ai ded and abet t ed Per al t a' s sl ander campai gn. . . .[ T] he ent i r e posse amassed on Oct ober 22 and 23, 2012was made up of a l arge[ ] and hi ghl y unl i kel y gr oup of of f i ci al s pr et endi ng t o assi st t he Uni t ed St at es i nt he DOJ l i t i gat i on and pr of essi ng t o make sur e t hatMagi st r at e- J udge Shushan' s or der s wer e obeyed, st at i ng

t o t he St . Bernard J udge who si gned t he warr ant t hat" . . . t he J udge [ i s ] demandi ng f i l es . . . " [ : ] ( i ) a par i shpr esi dent who hi msel f f ed t he f i r es of r aci aldi scr i mi nat i on ( Per al t a) , ( i i ) a par i sh l awyer i n adepar t ment r epl et e wi t h nepot i sm ( McGoey) , ( i i i ) abodyguar d l oaned by t he sher i f f t o the pr esi dent whodi dn' t t el l t he sher i f f what was happeni ng ( Gour gues) ,( i v) t he di r ector of t he par i sh compl ai nt of f i ce( Di l l on) , ( v) an i l l - qual i f i ed recreat i on di rect orf r om a depar t ment t hat deal t wi t h cul t ur e and t our i sm( DeHarde) , and ( vi ) a maver i ck FEMA money- handl er whogoes by t he moni ker pol i ceof f i cer 123@ymai l . com( Bour geoi s) ; al l per pet r at or s i nvol ved i n t he r ai dwere engagi ng i n a pr etext search andsei zur e. . . j ust i f i ed by a phant om i nvest i gat i on havi ngnot hi ng t o do wi t h t he DOJ l i t i gat i on. . . .

Taf f ar o suggest s t hat McGoey provi ded f al se or f r audul ent

i nf or mat i on t o Gour gues, who used t hat i nf or mat i on ( al ong wi t h

i nf or mat i on l ear ned f r omot her s dur i ng hi s i nvest i gat i on) t o appl y

f or a war r ant , whi ch was i ssued by t he st at e cour t j udge. Taf f ar o

f ur t her al l eges t hat Gour gues, Di l l on, DeHar de, and Bour geoi s

per sonal l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he "r ai d" on hi s st or age uni t . And, he

concl udes broadl y t hat t he rai d was t he mani f est at i on of Per al t a' s

r et al i at or y ani mus t owar d Taf f ar o. I n shor t , Taf f ar o al l eges t hat

t he def endant s conduct ed a shami nvest i gat i on and r ecover ed Par i sh

r ecor ds i n hi s st or age uni t under t he pr et ext of i nvest i gat i ng

Taf f ar o' s vi ol at i on of st at e l aw ( i nj ur i ng publ i c r ecor ds) , i n

23




order t o f ul f i l l Peral t a' s di s l i ke of Taf f aro. 21 And, even t hough

a sear ch war r ant was obt ai ned pr i or t o " t he r ai d" , Taf f ar o al l eges

i n nothi ng more t han concl usor y f ashi on t hat t he sear ch warr ant was

obt ai ned under " f al se pr etenses" and "f r aud per pet r at ed by McGoey. "

I t i s uncl ear what def ect Taf f ar o i s al l egi ng wi t h r espect t o t he

war r ant ; he f ocuses i nst ead on t he subj ect i ve i nt ent of t he var i ous

members of St . Bernard Par i sh Government , i ncl udi ng t hose whom he

al l eges par t i ci pat ed i n t he execut i on of t he war r ant . 22

" [ A] mat er i al mi sr epr esent at i on or omi ssi on f r om a war r ant

af f i davi t can gi ve r i se t o a § 1983 cl ai m f or money damages. "

Di ckey v. Huddl est on, 14 F. 3d 52, 1993 WL 560275, at *2 ( 5t h Ci r .

21Loui si ana Revi sed St at ut e 14: 132( B) pr ovi des t hat"i nj ur i ng publ i c recor ds" i nvol ves "t he i nt ent i onal r emoval ,mut i l at i on, dest r ucti on, al t er at i on, f al si f i cat i on, or conceal mentof any r ecor d, document , or ot her t hi ng, def i ned as a publ i c r ecor dpur suant t o R. S. 44: 1 et seq. and r equi r ed t o be pr eserved i n anypubl i c of f i ce or by any per son or publ i c of f i cer pur suant t o R. S.

44: 36. "22Speci f i cal l y addr essi ng Taf f ar o' s al l egat i ons t hat t he

mer e pr esence or par t i ci pat i on i n " t he r ai d" by Par i sh Gover nmentempl oyees Di l l on, Bour geoi s, and DeHar de, al ong wi t h t hei r i l l wi l lt owar d Taf f ar o, suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat t hey cont r i but ed t o hi sFour t h Amendment i nj ur y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Taf f ar o has f ai l ed t oal l ege suf f i ci ent f act s t hat woul d l i nk t hem t o a const i t ut i onaldepr i vat i on. " [ T] he pl eadi ng st andar d Rul e 8 announces does notr equi r e ' det ai l ed f act ual al l egat i ons, ' but i t demands mor e t han anunador ned, t he- def endant - unl awf ul l y- har med- me accusat i on. " Ashcrof tv. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678 ( 2009) ( ci t i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 8) ( ci t i ng

Bel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 555 ( 2007) ) . As t heSupr eme Cour t has obser ved, " [ w] her e t he pol i ce ent er a home undert he aut hor i t y of a war r ant t o sear ch f or st ol en pr oper t y, t hepr esence of t hi r d par t i es f or t he pur pose of i dent i f yi ng t he st ol enpr oper t y has l ong been appr oved by t hi s Cour t and our common- l awt r adi t i on. " Wi l son v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 611- 12 ( 1999) ( ci t at i onomi t t ed) .

24




1993) ( unpubl i shed) . I t i s wel l - set t l ed t hat :

To be const i t ut i onal l y val i d, a search war r ant must bebased on pr obabl e cause. The execut i on of a sear chwar r ant t hat i s not suppor t ed by pr obabl e cause,t her ef or e, vi ol at es t he Const i t ut i on. I n Fr anks v.

Del aware, 438 U. S. 154 ( 1978) , t he Supr eme Cour tconsi dered t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch a def endanti n a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng coul d chal l enge the ver aci t yof an af f i davi t used by t he pol i ce t o obt ai n anot her wi se val i d sear ch war r ant . The Cour t hel d t hata cr i mi nal def endant coul d chal l enge the t r ut hf ul nessof a war r ant af f i davi t and t hat t he f r ui t s of t her esul t i ng sear ch coul d be suppr essed i f t he def endantcoul d show t hat t he af f i davi t cont ai ned st at ement st hat wer e unt r ue and necessary t o t he magi st r ate' sf i ndi ng of pr obabl e cause. . . .

I d. The Fi f t h Ci r cui t al so not ed:

Whet her t her e i s pr obabl e cause f or t he i ssuance of asearch warr ant depends on whether " ' t he magi st r ate waspr ovi ded wi t h suf f i ci ent r el i abl e i nf or mat i on f r omwhi ch he coul d r easonabl y concl ude that t he i t emssought i n t he war r ant wer e pr obabl y at t he l ocat i onsought t o be sear ched. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Wake, 948F. 2d 1422, 1428 ( 5t h Ci r . 1991) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I nt he det er mi nat i on of pr obabl e cause, t he magi st r at e"may dr aw r easonabl e i nf er ences f r om t he mat er i al he

r ecei ves, and hi s ul t i mat e pr obabl e causedetermi nat i on shoul d be pai d gr eat def erence byr evi ewi ng cour t s. " Uni t ed St at es v. May, 819 F. 2d531, 535 ( 5t h Ci r . 1987) . The magi st r at e must

make a pract i cal , common- sensedeci si on whet her , gi ven al l t heci r cumst ances set f or t h i n t heaf f i davi t bef or e hi m, i ncl udi ng t he"ver aci t y" and "basi s of knowl edge"of per sons suppl yi ng hear sayi nf or mat i on, t her e i s a f ai r

pr obabi l i t y t hat cont r aband orevi dence of a cr i me wi l l be f ound i na par t i cul ar pl ace. And t he dut y of a r evi ewi ng cour t i s si mpl y t oensure t hat t he magi st r ate had a"substant i al basi s f or . . .concl ud[ i ng] " t hat pr obabl e cause

25




exi sted. I l l i noi s v. Gat es, 462U. S. 213, 238- 39 ( 1983) ( ci t at i onomi t t ed) .

I d. at *2 n. 1.

These wel l - set t l ed pr i nci pl es concer ni ng t he const i t ut i onal

val i di t y of sear ch war r ant s are out l i ned above t o advance t he t ask

of det er mi ni ng whet her Taf f ar o adequat el y has st at ed a

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on wi t h r espect t o t he Oct ober 23, 2012

sear ch of hi s st or age uni t and sei zur e of boxes cont ai ni ng Par i sh

r ecor ds. The t ask i s compl i cat ed somewhat by Taf f ar o' s

i nconsi st ent and cont r adi ctor y f actual al l egat i ons, and hi s f ai l ur e

t o i dent i f y t he al l eged def ect i n t he war r ant obt ai ned by Sgt .

Gourgues, 23 as wel l as al l counsel ' s i nadequat e br i ef i ng of t he

r el evant l aw.

23 Taf f ar o suggest s t hat Uni t ed Stat es v. Leon, 468 U. S.

897 ( 1984) i s on poi nt i n est abl i shi ng t hat t he war r ant and i t sexecut i on f ai l t o meet t he obj ect i vel y r easonabl e t est becauseGour gues i s not a det ect i ve and " [ t ] he t est i s not whet her [ t hest at e cour t j udge] i ssued an i l l egal war r ant , but whet her ar easonabl y wel l - t r ai ned of f i ci al woul d have known t hat hi saf f i davi t f ai l ed t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause and/ or t hat he shoul dnot have appl i ed f or a war r ant i n t he f i r st pl ace. " The Supr emeCour t hel pf ul l y i nst r uct s i n Leon t hat "gr eat def er ence" i saccor ded t o a magi st r at e j udge' s det er mi nat i on of pr obabl e cause,but caut i ons t hat cour t s shoul d not "def er t o a war r ant based on anaf f i davi t t hat does not ' pr ovi de t he magi st r at e wi t h a subst ant i albasi s f or det er mi ni ng t he exi st ence of pr obabl e cause. ' " I d. at

914- 15. But an anal ysi s of Leon at t hi s st age, i n whi ch t he Cour tsi mpl y addr esses t he def endant s' chal l enge t o t he suf f i ci ency of Taf f ar o' s al l egat i ons concer ni ng hi s al l eged Four t h Amendmentvi ol at i on, i s not necessar y. I ndeed, Gour gues does not pr esent l yr equest any r el i ef f r om t hi s Cour t , and Taf f ar o f ai l s t o suggesthow Leon shoul d be appl i ed to t he def endant s' chal l enge t o t hesuf f i ci ency of hi s al l egat i ons agai nst t hem.

26




Taf f ar o seems t o suggest i n hi s compl ai nt t hat McGoey l i ed

when he t ol d Gour gues t hat Taf f ar o t ol d hi m ( McGoey) t hat he

( Taf f aro) had government document s i n hi s possessi on t hat he

r ef used t o r et ur n. However , even assumi ng t hat t hese f act ual

al l egat i ons ar e suf f i ci ent l y wel l - pl ed t o be deemed t r ue at t hi s

st age of t he l i t i gat i on, t hese f act ual al l egat i ons ar e cont r adi cted

by ot her al l egat i ons of t he compl ai nt i n whi ch ( a) Taf f ar o al l eges

t hat , af t er he r ecei ved McGoey' s l et t er , 24 "Taf f ar o made mul t i pl e

phone cal l s t o McGoey wi t h t he i nt ent t o f ul f i l l hi s of f er t o

del i ver anythi ng t hat mi ght be needed" , t hus admi t t i ng t hat he

"mi ght " i ndeed have Par i sh r ecor ds; and ( b) Taf f ar o al l eges t hat

McGoey vi ol at ed hi s pr of essi onal r esponsi bi l i t i es when he f ai l ed t o

i nf or m t he Cour t handl i ng t he DOJ l i t i gat i on t hat Taf f ar o had i n

hi s possessi on Par i sh gover nment document s. 25 These al l egat i ons

24

Thi s i s t he Oct ober 19, 2012 l et t er at t ached t o t hecompl ai nt t hat McGoey sent t o Taf f aro on Peral t a Par i sh Governmentl et t er head, i n whi ch McGoey st at es " I n my l ast conver sat i on wi t hyou, you i ndi cat ed t o me that you have copi es of some document sgener at ed dur i ng your admi ni st r at i on. . . " and f ur t her st at es "[ I ] ti s essent i al t hat t he Par i sh r ecover y any and al l Par i sh document si n your possessi on. . . so that we can honor our dut y t o t he Cour t . . . Icannot r epr esent t o t he Cour t t hat we have pr oduced al l document s,i f I have r eason t o bel i eve that t her e may be document s t hat I havenot pr oduced. "

25Mor e conf usi ng, Taf f ar o admi t s i n hi s opposi t i on paper s

t hat "Al l def endant s knew or shoul d have known t hat [ Taf f ar o]packed some f i l es and st or ed t hemat t he subj ect st or age uni t . " I nan at t empt t o r econci l e Taf f ar o' s i nt er nal l y i nconsi st ent f act ualal l egat i ons, and vi ewi ng t hese al l egat i ons i n t he l i ght mostf avor abl e t o Taf f ar o, i t seems t hat Taf f ar o i s al l egi ng t hat McGoeyt ol d Gour gues t hat Taf f ar o had i n hi s st or age uni t Par i shgovernment document s and t hat t he Par i sh needed t o r ecover t hose

27




f ai l t he r equi r ement s of Rul e 8, and Rul e 9( b) , whi ch appl i es t o

t he ext ent Taf f ar o al l eges f r aud. 26

Taf f ar o' s conf used cl ai ms si mpl y hi ghl i ght hi s f ai l ure t o

i dent i f y t he al l eged def ect i n t he war r ant : i n f act , Taf f ar o

nowher e al l eges, i n a concl usor y f ashi on or ot her wi se, t hat t he

war r ant i ssued by the st at e cour t j udge was i nval i d or not based on

pr obabl e cause. 27 For Taf f ar o t o r ecover agai nst any of Per al t a,

document s but t hat McGoey l i ed t o t he ext ent t hat he t ol d Gour gues

t hat Taf f ar o r ef used t o t ur n over t he Par i sh r ecor ds i n hi spossessi on. Even t hough Taf f aro had ampl e opport uni t y t o pr esentt o t he Cour t any argument he mi ght have t hat woul d suppor t hi sconst i t ut i onal t heor y as advanced agai nst t he def endant s, he hasf ai l ed t o do so. Even i f McGoey conveyed f al se or i ncompl et ei nf or mat i on t o Gour gues, t her e i s no al l egat i on i n t he compl ai ntsuggest i ng that McGoey' s mi si nf or mat i on, st andi ng al one, under mi nedt he pr obabl e cause f i ndi ng by t he st at e cour t j udge.

26Per al t a cont ends t hat Taf f ar o' s al l egat i ons t hat t hewar r ant was obt ai ned under f al se pr et enses, or by "f r aud" , must bespeci f i cal l y pl eaded under Rul e 9( b) .

27Based on t he compl ai nt and mat er i al s f i l ed by Taf f ar oal ong wi t h t he compl ai nt : Taf f aro had Par i sh government document si n hi s st or age uni t ; t he Par i sh was r equi r ed t o pr oduce Par i shgover nment r ecor ds i n t he DOJ l i t i gat i on; t he Par i sh l awyercont acted Taf f aro about pr oduci ng document s he had i n hi spossessi on; bef or e gi vi ng Taf f ar o a chance t o vol unt ar i l y pr oducet he document s, t he Par i sh l awyer t ol d a Par i sh pol i ce of f i cer t hat Taf f ar o had publ i c r ecor ds i n hi s possess i on; a pol i ce of f i ceri nvest i gat ed whet her publ i c r ecor ds had been " i nj ur ed" by t al ki ngt o ot her s wi t h knowl edge of t he wher eabout s of t he Par i sh recor ds;

accor di ng t o t he warr ant appl i cat i on, another government empl oyeecor r obor at ed t he Par i sh l awyer ' s suggest i on t hat Taf f ar o was i npossessi on of Par i sh r ecor ds; a Par i sh pol i ce of f i cer obt ai ned awar r ant f r om a st at e cour t j udge based on swear i ng t o t hei nf or mat i on he l ear ned whi l e i nvest i gat i ng Taf f ar o' s possessi on of Par i sh r ecor ds. Taf f ar o si mpl y does not al l ege f act s t hat , i f pr oven, woul d est abl i sh t hat pr obabl e cause was l acki ng.

28




McGoey, Di l l on, DeHar de, Bour geoui s, or t he St . Ber nar d Par i sh

Gover nment , he must al l ege f act s t hat , i f pr oven, est abl i sh that

t he war r ant obt ai ned t o sear ch the st or age uni t was not suppor t ed

by pr obabl e cause and, t hus, const i t ut i onal l y i nval i d. Ther e ar e

no wel l - pl eaded f act s suppor t i ve of t hi s f i ndi ng.

Taf f ar o l eans heavi l y, i ndeed al most excl usi vel y, on hi s

al l egat i ons of mal i ci ous conduct by t he def endant s and t he need f or

t he def endant s t o be puni shed. 28 But t he Four t h Amendment ' s f ocus

on obj ect i ve f act or s and r easonabl eness under mi ne hi s r el i ance on

t he def endant s' al l eged r et al i at or y pol i t i cal i nt r i gue. Taf f ar o

i nvokes t he Supr eme Cour t ' s obser vat i on i n Whr en v. Uni t ed St ates,

517 U. S. 806, 811 (1996) t hat "an i nvent ory sear ch must not be a

r use f or a gener al r ummagi ng i n or der t o di scover i ncr i mi nat i ng

evi dence. " But Taf f ar o' s rel i ance on Whr en and t he f ocus i n hi s

compl ai nt on t he def endant s' subj ect i ve mot i ves i s mi spl aced. 29 I n

f act , when t he pet i t i oner , Whr en, char act er i zed t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

pr i or pr ecedent as endor si ng t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he Cour t

28 Taf f ar o does not al l ege f act s t hat chal l enge t heobj ect i ve val i di t y of t he war r ant , nor does he al l ege t hat pr obabl ecause suppor t i ng t he i nj ur y of publ i c r ecor ds was absent ; he si mpl ysuggest s and concl udes t hat any suggest i on t hat t he Par i sh want edi t s r ecor ds back t o pr oduce i n t he DOJ l i t i gat i on was a pr et ext

and, even i f i t was not a pr et ext , t hen t he r ecor ds shoul d havebeen r ecover ed by resor t t o the subpoena power of t he f ederalcour t , and not by a war r ant i ssued by a st at e j udge.

29Nor shoul d t here be any conf usi on t hat t he Oct ober 23sear ch, whi ch even Taf f aro al l eges was made pur suant t o a warr ant ,was s i mpl y an " i nvent or y sear ch. "

29




di sappr oves of pol i ce at t empt s t o use val i d bases of act i on agai nst

ci t i zens as pr et ext s f or pur sui ng ot her i nvest i gat or y agendas, t he

Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed t hat char act er i zat i on of i t s pr ecedent . 30

To t he cont r ar y, t he Supreme Cour t conf i r med t hat i t has "been

unwi l l i ng t o ent er t ai n Four t h Amendment chal l enges based on t he

actual mot i vat i ons of i ndi vi dual of f i cer s", obser vi ng:

onl y an undi scer ni ng r eader woul d r egard t hese casesas endor si ng t he pr i nci pl e t hat ul t er i or mot i ves cani nval i dat e pol i ce conduct t hat i s j ust i f i abl e on t hebasi s of pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve t hat a vi ol at i on of l aw has occurr ed. I n each case we were addr essi ng t heval i di t y of a sear ch conduct ed i n t he absence of pr obabl e cause. Our quoted st atement s si mpl y expl ai nt hat t he exempt i on f r om t he need f or pr obabl e cause( and warr ant ) , whi ch i s accorded t o sear ches made f ort he pur pose of i nvent or y or admi ni st r at i ve r egul at i on,i s not accor ded t o sear ches t hat are not made f ort hose pur poses.

I d. at 811.

Thus, Whren makes cl ear t hat " [ s] ubj ect i ve i ntent i ons pl ay

no r ol e i n or di nar y, pr obabl e- cause Four t h Amendment anal ysi s. "

30I n Whr en, t he Supr eme Cour t was adamant i n r ej ect i ng t hepet i t i oner ' s pr oposal t hat t he t est f or t r af f i c stops shoul d be,not whet her pr obabl e cause exi st ed t o j ust i f y the st op but ,i nst ead, whet her a pol i ce of f i cer , act i ng r easonabl y, woul d havemade t he st op f or t he r eason gi ven. The argument advanced bypet i t i oner was t hat , because pol i ce of f i cer s coul d i nvar i abl y havepr obabl e cause to st op any gi ven mot or i st f or any number of t r af f i cvi ol at i ons, and t hat of f i cer s mi ght use a t echni cal vi ol at i on as apr et ext f or st oppi ng a mot or i st f or some i mper mi ssi bl e reason

( whether i t be based on r ace of t he car ' s occupant s or as a meansof i nvest i gat i ng ot her l aw vi ol at i ons f or whi ch no pr obabl e causeexi st s) . The Supr eme Cour t was not per suaded. "Not onl y have wenever hel d, out si de t he cont ext of i nvent or y sear ch oradmi ni st r at i ve i nspect i on. . . t hat an of f i cer ' s mot i ve i nval i dat esobj ect i vel y j ust i f i abl e behavi or under t he Four t h Amendment ; but wehave r epeat edl y hel d and asser t ed t he cont r ar y. " I d. at 812.

30




I d. at 813; see al so Kent ucky v. Ki ng, 131 S. Ct . 1849, 1859

( 2011) ( "Our cases have r epeat edl y rej ect ed a subj ect i ve appr oach,

aski ng onl y whet her " t he ci r cumst ances, vi ewed obj ect i vel y,

j ust i f i es t he act i on. " ) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) . Her e, t he f act s t hat

Taf f ar o al l eges t o suppor t hi s Four t h Amendment cl ai mbased on t he

Oct ober 23 r ai d f ocus on t he def endant s' subj ect i ve mot i ves. But

even assumi ng t hat Taf f ar o can pr ove dar k ul t er i or mot i ves, i t does

not f ol l ow t hat t hese mot i ves i nval i dat e conduct t hat i s ot her wi se

obj ect i vel y j ust i f i abl e ( on t he basi s of pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve

t hat a vi ol at i on of l aw, i nj ur i ng publ i c r ecor ds, has occur r ed) . 31

A sear ch based on a war r ant suppor t ed by probabl e cause compor t s

wi t h t he Four t h Amendment even i f t he st at e act or s i nvol ved i n

pr ocur i ng and execut i ng t he war r ant wer e i nt ense pol i t i cal r i val s.

Thus, Taf f ar o' s f ocus on suspect ed subj ect i ve i nt ent , t o t he

excl usi on of al l egi ng f act s t hat , i f pr oven, woul d est abl i sh t hat

t here was no pr obabl e cause support i ng the warr ant t o sear ch and

31 Taf f ar o admi t s i n hi s compl ai nt t hat he had i n hi sper sonal st or age uni t Par i sh r ecor ds, but he char ges t hat ani nvest i gat i on i nt o any st at e cour t char ge of "i nj ur i ng publ i cr ecor ds" shoul d not have been i ni t i at ed; i nst ead, Taf f ar o suggest st hat i f t he document s he possessed were i n f act r equi r ed by t he DOJl i t i gat i on, t he bet t er pr ocedur e woul d have been a subpoena. Thi ssuggest i on coupl ed wi t h numer ous al l egat i ons suggest i ng that

Per al t a and t he ot her Par i sh gover nment def endant s di sl i ked hi mandhad i t out f or hi m f al l s shor t of s tat i ng a cl ai m t hat hi sconst i t ut i onal r i ght t o be f r ee f r om unr easonabl e sear ch andsei zur e was vi ol ated. Even assumi ng t hat each of t he def endant sacted wi t h i l l wi l l t owar d Taf f ar o, Taf f ar o' s al l egat i ons f al lshor t of pl ausi bl y al l egi ng t hat t he pr obabl e cause f ound by t hest at e cour t j udge t hat i ssued t he sear ch war r ant was whol l y absent .

31




sei ze Par i sh gover nment r ecor ds, i s f at al t o hi s at t empt t o st at e

a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a § 1983 cl ai m. 32

I I I .

The def endant s al so r equest di smi ssal of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

st at e l aw cl ai ms on t he gr ound t hat he has f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m

upon whi ch r el i ef may be gr ant ed. Al t hough t he Cour t di smi sses t he

cl ai ms agai nst movant s over whi ch the Cour t has or i gi nal

j ur i sdi ct i on, t he Court does not decl i ne t o exerci se i t s

suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over t hese st at e l aw cl ai ms because

f eder al ci vi l r i ght s cl ai ms r emai n pendi ng agai nst t he one

def endant who di d not j oi n i n t hese def endant s' mot i ons, Sgt .

Gour gues. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t consi der s t he suf f i ci ency of t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s st at e cour t cl ai ms agai nst Per al t a, McGoey, Di l l on,

Bour geoi s, DeHarde, and St . Bernard Par i sh Government .

A.

Taf f ar o al l eges t hat t he def endant s wr ongf ul l y i nter f er ed

wi t h hi s car eer r i ght s "[ b] y vi r t ue of f al se, def amat or y and

32Agai n, because t he Cour t has determi ned t hat Taf f aro hasf ai l ed t o suf f i ci ent l y al l ege a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on t hatwoul d suppor t hi s § 1983 cl ai m agai nst t he movi ng def endant s, i tneed not par se the compl ai nt f or t he al l egat i ons concerni ng eachi ndi vi dual or t he Par i sh Gover nment . For exampl e, t he Cour t neednot r esol ve t he par t i es' di sput e r egar di ng whet her or not t he

pl ai nt i f f has st at ed a cl ai mf or s i ngl e- i nci dent l i abi l i t y agai nstt he Par i sh Gover nment because stat i ng a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on i sa necessar y pr edi cat e t o any muni ci pal l i abi l i t y cl ai m. See Ci t yof St . Loui s v. Pr ar pr ot ni k, 485 U. S. 112, 137- 38 ( 1988) ( not i ngt hat " t he touchst one of t he § 1983 act i on agai nst a government bodyi s an al l egat i on t hat of f i c i al pol i cy i s r esponsi bl e f or t hedepr i vat i on of r i ght s pr ot ect ed by t he Const i t ut i on. ") .

32




cal umni ous communi cat i ons t o Taf f ar o' s pr esent empl oyer " ; he

al l eges t hat " t he cal umni ous i nf or mat i on di ssemi nat ed by Per al t a' s

systemat i c pat t er n of r et al i at i on" has i r r epar abl y damaged hi s

abi l i t y t o advance i n hi s st at e gover nment posi t i on. The

def endant s count er t hat empl oyment i s not a pr ot ected r i ght , and

Taf f ar o has f ai l ed t o al l ege f act s t o support each of t he el ement s

t o mai nt ai n such a cl ai m. The Cour t agr ees. Taf f ar o does not

al l ege t hat he i s anyt hi ng but an at - wi l l empl oyee of t he st at e.

" I n Loui si ana, ' [ a] bsent a speci f i c cont r act or agr eement

est abl i shi ng a f i xed t er mof empl oyment , an empl oyer i s at l i ber t y

t o di smi ss an empl oyee at any t i me f or any r eason. . . . " Gl over v.

Smi t h, 478 Fed. Appx. 236, 240 (5t h Ci r . 2012) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) .

Mor eover , Taf f ar o f ai l s t o al l ege t hat any of t he def endant s owed

any dut y t owar d Taf f ar o or hi s empl oyment cont r act , whi ch i s f at al

t o hi s cl ai m f or i nt er f er ence wi t h hi s car eer r i ght s. See

Pet r ohawk Pr oper t i es, L. P. v. Chesapeake Loui si ana, L. P. , 689 F. 3d

380, 394 ( 5t h Ci r . 2012) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

B.

Taf f ar o cl ai ms t hat t he def endant s ar e l i abl e f or st i l l

anot her i nt ent i onal t or t : i nt ent i onal i nf l i cti on of emot i onal

di str ess. A pl ai nt i f f br i ngi ng t hi s cl ai m must al l ege:

( 1) t hat t he conduct of t he def endant was ext r eme andout r ageous;( 2) t hat t he emot i onal di st r ess suf f er ed by t hepl ai nt i f f was sever e; and( 3) t hat t he def endant desi r ed t o i nf l i ct sever eemot i onal di st r ess or knew t hat sever e emot i onal

33




di st r ess woul d be cer t ai n or subst ant i al l y cer t ai n t or esul t f r om hi s conduct .

Whi t e v. Monsant o, 585 So. 2d 1205, 1209 ( La. 1991) . I n f act ,

" [ t ] he conduct must be so out r ageous i n character , and so ext r eme

i n degr ee, as t o go beyond al l possi bl e bounds of decency, and t o

be r egar ded as at r oci ous and ut t er l y i nt ol er abl e i n a ci vi l i zed

communi t y. " I d. ( not i ng t hat " [ l ] i abi l i t y does not ext end t o mer e

i nsul t s, i ndi gni t i es, t hr eat s, annoyances, pet t y oppr essi ons, or

ot her t r i vi al i t i es. Per sons must necessar i l y be expect ed t o be

hardened t o a cer t ai n amount of r ough l anguage, and t o occasi onal

act s t hat ar e def i ni t el y i nconsi der at e and unki nd. ") .

Taf f ar o has f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m. He r ef er s gener al l y t o

t he "pat t er n of r et al i at i on on t he par t of t he def endant s" but does

not i dent i f y what conduct he wi shes t o char act er i ze as

"out r ageous" ; he ref er s t o a "campai gn of sl ander " but does not

i dent i f y what out r ageous st at ement s were made, who made t hem, ort hat t he def endant s i nt ended t o or knew t hat sever e emot i onal

di st r ess woul d r esul t . He seems t o succeed onl y i n por t r ayi ng an

unpl easant r i val r y agai nst t he backdr op of l ocal pol i t i cs.

C.

Taf f ar o next al l eges cl ai ms f or "abuse of r i ght s" and "abuse

of pr ocess" . The def endant s ask t he Cour t t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce

t hat : t he document s r ecover ed f r om Taf f ar o' s s t or age uni t wer e

subpoenaed by t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce; t he document s have been

used i n t he DOJ l i t i gat i on; and t hat Magi st r at e J udge Shushan

34




or der ed t he document s r et ur ned t o t he Par i sh af t er t he par t i es

scanned and exchanged t hem f or di scovery pur poses.

1. Abuse of Ri ght s

The Loui si ana abuse of r i ght s doct r i ne appl i es i f one of t he

f ol l owi ng condi t i ons i s met :

( 1) t he r i ght s wer e exer ci sed excl usi vel y f or t hepur pose of harmi ng another or wi t h the pr edomi nantmot i ve t o cause har m;( 2) an absence of a ser i ous and l egi t i mat e i nt er estt hat i s wor t hy of j udi ci al pr ot ect i on;( 3) usi ng t he r i ght i n vi ol at i on of mor al r ul es, goodf ai t h or el ement ar y f ai r ness; or( 4) exer ci si ng t he r i ght f or a pur pose ot her t han f orwhi ch i t was gr ant ed.

Deus v. Al l st at e I ns. Co. , 15 F. 3d 506, 520 ( 5t h Ci r .

1994) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) .

2. Abuse of Pr ocess

The essent i al el ement s of an abuse of process cl ai mar e " ( 1)

t he exi st ence of an ul t er i or pur pose; and ( 2) a wi l l f ul act i n t he

use of t he pr ocess not i n t he r egul ar pr osecut i on of t he

pr oceedi ng. " Duboue v. Ci t y of New Or l eans, 909 F. 2d 129, 132 ( 5t h

Ci r . 1990) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

As pl ed, Taf f ar o' s abuse of r i ght s and abuse of pr ocess

cl ai ms l ack f aci al pl ausi bi l i t y; he si mpl y has f ai l ed t o pl ead

suf f i ci ent f act ual cont ent t hat al l ows t he Cour t t o dr aw t he

r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he def endant s ar e col l ect i vel y l i abl e

f or abuse of r i ght s and abuse of pr ocess. See I qbal , 556 U. S. at

678. Taf f ar o must pr ovi de “mor e t han l abel s and concl usi ons, and

35




a f or mul ai c r eci t at i on of t he el ement s of a cause of act i on wi l l

not do. ” See Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 555. And, when numer ous

def endant s ar e col l ect i vel y i mpl i cat ed i n al l eged mi sconduct , t he

"shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai mshowi ng t hat t he pl eader i s

ent i t l ed t o r el i ef " must at l east i mpl i cat e di scret e def endant s i n

speci f i c conduct . I f Taf f ar o i n good f ai t h bel i eves t hat he can

cur e t hi s pl eadi ng def ect on t hese cl ai ms, l eave wi l l be gr ant ed t o

do so, as l ong as t hey ar e deal t wi t h pr of essi onal l y, r est r ai ned,

t o the poi nt , and wi t hout t he f al se dr ama of emot i onal hype.

D.

The Cour t not es t hat Taf f ar o does not al l ege, by a separ at e

count i n hi s compl ai nt , a cl ai m f or def amat i on or s l ander . But he

weaves t hr oughout hi s compl ai nt t hat t here was "a campai gn of

sl ander" and t hat t he def endant s def amed hi m. To t he ext ent

Taf f ar o i ntended t o st at e a separ at e cl ai mf or def amat i on, any such

cl ai m i s di smi ssed f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. He, agai n,

al l eges not hi ng mor e than concl usi ons, has not al l eged t hat t he

def endant s publ i shed knowi ngl y f al se st at ement s, and f ai l s t o "name

t he i ndi vi dual of f ender s and al l ege separ at e act s of def amat i on as

t o each, i ncl udi ng speci f i c def amat or y st at ement s. " See Fi t zger al d

v. Tucker , 737 So. 2d 706, 713 ( La. 1999) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Mor eover , t o t he extent t hat Taf f ar o at t r i but es t o Bour geoi s

speci f i c st at ement s or conduct t hat Taf f ar o bel i eves t o be

i nj ur i ous t o hi s r eput at i on ( such as t hat Bour geoi s l eaked t o t he

36




medi a "subst ant i al l y bogus accusat i ons. . . r egar di ng cr edi t car d

expenses" ) , he f ai l s t o al l ege t hat Bour geoi s act ed wi t h act ual

mal i ce. See Har dy v. Har t f or d I ns. Co. , 236 F. 3d 287, 292 ( 5t h ci r .

2001) ; New Yor k Ti mes Co. v. Sul l i van, 376 U. S. 254 ( 1964) .

I V.

Ther e ar e t wo r emai ni ng mot i ons: t he def endant s' speci al

mot i on t o st r i ke and t he pl ai nt i f f ' s mot i on f or gag or der .

The def endant s' speci al mot i on t o st r i ke i s DENI ED as moot .

The pl ai nt i f f ' s mot i on f or gag or der , i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f

obj ect s t o si x pr eser vat i on l et t er s ( whi ch he cal l s "f aux- di scover y

l et t er s" ) sent by counsel f or t he Par i sh Gover nment and i ndi vi dual

Par i sh Government def endant s, i s opposed. The r equest f or a gag

or der , i n whi ch Taf f ar o f ocuses on t he need t o det er t he

def endant s' mal i ci ous conduct , i s unsuppor t ed and i s, t her ef or e,

DENI ED. I f any of t he l awyer s or par t i es t o t hi s case engage i n

sanct i onabl e conduct , t he Cour t wi l l consi der a pr oper l y suppor t ed

r equest f or sanct i ons.

Accordi ngl y, t he def endant s' mot i ons t o di smi ss are GRANTED;

t he def endant s' speci al mot i on t o st r i ke i s DENI ED as moot ; and t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s mot i on f or gag or der i s DENI ED. Taf f ar o' s f eder al l aw

cl ai ms agai nst Per al t a, McGoey, Di l l on, Bour geoi s, DeHar de, t he St .

Bernard Par i sh Government , and St . Bernard Par i sh ar e hereby

di smi ssed. However , i f Taf f ar o i n good f ai t h bel i eves t hat he can

cur e t he pl eadi ng def ect s wi t h r espect t o hi s abuse of r i ght s and

37




abuse of pr ocess st ate l aw cl ai ms, he may f i l e an amended compl ai nt

as t o t hese two cl ai ms no l at er t han 14 days f r om t he dat e of t hi s

Or der and Reasons.

Fi nal l y, t he Cour t not es t hat t he r ecor d i s uncl ear as t o how

counsel f or J ar r od Gour gues, who di d not j oi n i n t he ot her

def endant s' mot i ons t o di smi ss, i nt ends t o pr oceed.

New Or l eans, Loui si ana, May 17, 2013

______________________________ MARTI N L. C. FELDMAN

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE


Documents

Order to Dismiss Taffaro Complaint