Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
__________________________________________
RODNEY GRANT, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.:
v. )
)
MARLIN GUSMAN, CARMEN DESADIER, ) Judge ______________
SIDNEY HOLT, DJUANA BIERRIA, )
JAMES LEBLANC, TIMOTHY HOOPER, )
CHRIS STINSON, LASALLE MANAGEMENT )
COMPANY, L.L.C., DOES 1-10, ABC ) Magistrate ______________
INSURANCE COMPANIES 1-10, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff Rodney Grant, by and through undersigned counsel, to file this Complaint

against the Defendants. In support, they state the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. On July 2, 2000, Plaintiff Rodney Grant was arrested in New Orleans on suspicion of simple

burglary. He spent the next sixty-one days in Orleans Parish Prison without being charged with a crime.

He was released on September 3, 2000, because the District Attorney failed to file a bill of information

by the statutory deadline.

2. On October 30, 2000, the DA filed a Bill of Information for simple burglary.

3. On November 10, 2000, Rodney was due to be arraigned, but the court was closed that day. An

arraignment was reset for November 29, 2000, and a summons was mailed for him, but Rodney never

received it. Because he didnt receive the summons, he didnt know to appear for the arraignment but

the court nevertheless issued a warrant for his arrest and set a $112,000 bond.

4. Years passed. The Bill of Information expired by operation of law. Rodneys arrest warrant,

however, stayed in the system.

5. Between 2008 and 2015, Mr. Grant was incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Institute for a

different crime. While there, he achieved Class A trustee status and worked at the state mental hospital.

6. On June 25, 2015, Rodney was released from Dixon. He got his life back on track, got an

apartment, and got a job working at a group home.

7. A year later, on June 27, 2016, Rodney was arrested while trying to obtain a drivers license

this time for the 2000 warrant, which was a decade and a half old by that time and predicated on a long-

expired charge.

8. On June 30, 2016, Rodney appeared for arraignment in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court.
1
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 2 of 10

Judge Camille Buras, seeing the injustice of his situation, allowed Rodney to plead guilty to a one year

sentence, with credit for time served for the seven years he had just served at Dixon.

9. Because he completed his sentence, Rodney should have walked free that day or the next.

10. To ensure he was released without delay, the Judge contacted an attorney at the Orleans Parish

Sheriffs Office and requested that the Sheriff expedite processing for Rodneys release. The Sheriffs

attorney then contacted several officialsincluding Sheriff Marlin Gusman, Chief of Corrections

Carmen DeSadier, Major Sidney Holt, and Sergeant Djuana Bierriaabout expediting processing,

stating that Rodney really shouldnt have to actually serve any time once DOC processes it and that

his sentence was one year DOC credit for time served from 2008-present.

11. But the Sheriff and his officials did not release Rodney.

12. He sat at the Orleans Parish Prison for another week and a half. On July 12, 2016, the Sheriff

handed Rodney over to the state Department of Public Safety & Corrections (DOC), who processed

him at a Baton Rouge prison.

13. Once they took custody of him, the DOC should have seen that his sentence was served and

immediately released him.

14. But the DOC did not release Rodney. Instead, they sent him to the Madison Parish Correctional

Center (MPCC) in Tallulah, Louisiana, operated by the private prison corporation LaSalle

Corrections. At intake there, Rodney explained to an officer that his time was served and he should be

out. She looked at his sheet and agreed that it indicated no sentence.

15. However, LaSalle did not release Rodney.

16. Rodneys friend, Alfred, became concerned for his Rodney. Alfred spoke to Judge Buras, who

on or about July 15 called the Sheriff and Warden Stinson of LaSalle to ask why Rodney had not been

released.

17. On July 18, 2016, because Rodney still had not been released, Judge Buras held another hearing.

She vacated Rodneys one year, credit for time served sentence and replaced it with CREDIT FOR

TIME SERVED.

18. Despite having no legal authority whatsoever to hold Rodney, the DOC and LaSalle still did not

release him.

19. On July 25, 2016, Judge Buras called Irma Ray at the DOC. The Judge then called and emailed

Kanedra Burton at the DOC.

20. Finally, several days later on July 27, 2016, Rodney was released. He was dropped off in

Madison, Louisiana, and given a bus ticket back to New Orleans.

2
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 3 of 10

21. The law is clear: once a persons sentence is served, his jailors have a reasonable timenot

exceeding forty-eight hoursto process and release him. Any detention past that reasonable, less-than-

48-hour time is called overdetention and constitutes a violation of the persons constitutional rights.

See Powell v. Barrett, 376 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1354 (The Court has been unable to find any case,

whether within or outside of the Eleventh Circuit, in which the detainment of a properly identified

individual for days beyond his scheduled release date was held constitutionally permissible.)

22. This is a civil action for injunctive, monetary, and other relief for the violation of Plaintiffs

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2 of the

Louisiana Constitution, etc.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23. Plaintiffs claim arises under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. This Court has

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims of federal rights violations, enforceable under the Fourteenth

Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(3). This Court has

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Louisiana false imprisonment claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1367.

24. The venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2). A

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Orleans Parish, Louisiana situated in

the Eastern District of Louisiana.

III. THE PARTIES

Plaintiff

25. Plaintiff Rodney Grant is of suitable age and capacity to file this suit. At all relevant time

during this suit (aside from his false imprisonment in Baton Rouge and Tallulah), Plaintiff was a

resident of Orleans Parish in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Defendants

26. Defendant Marlin Gusman is the Sheriff for the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office and a final
3
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 4 of 10

policymaker. He is sued in his individual and official capacity. On information and belief, he is

domiciled in Orleans Parish in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

27. Defendant Carmen DeSadier is the former Chief of Corrections for the Orleans Parish Sheriffs

Office. She is sued in her individual capacity. She is domiciled in Cook County in the North District of

Illinois.

28. Defendant Sidney Holt is Captain for the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office. He is sued in his

individual and official capacities. On information and belief, he is domiciled in Jefferson Parish in the

Eastern District of Louisiana.

29. Defendant Djuana Bierria is Sergeant for the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office. She is sued in her

individual and official capacities. On information and belief, she is domiciled in Jefferson Parish in the

Eastern District of Louisiana.

30. Defendant James LeBlanc is the Secretary for the Louisiana Department of Corrections and a

final policymaker. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. On information and belief, he is

domiciled in Calcasieu Parish in the Western District of Louisiana.

31. Defendant Timothy Hooper is the Warden of Elayn Hunt Correctional Center for the Louisiana

Department of Corrections and a final policymaker. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

On information and belief, he is domiciled in Calcasieu Parish in the Western District of Louisiana.

32. Defendant Chris Stinson is the Warden of Madison Parish Correctional Center (MPCC) for

LaSalle Corrections and a final policymaker. He is sued in his individual capacity for monetary damages

and in his official capacity for injunctive relief. He is domiciled in Rapides Parish in the Western

District of Louisiana.

33. Defendant LaSalle Management Company, L.L.C. (d.b.a. LaSalle Corrections) is a Limited

Liability Company domiciled in Ruston, Louisiana and a final policymaker. It is sued in its individual

corporate capacity and in its official capacity.

34. Defendants Does 1 to 10 are as-yet unknown individuals or entities involved in the overdetention

of Rodney Grant. They are sued in their official and individual capacities.

35. Defendants ABC Insurance Companies 1-10 are as yet unknown insurance companies, who,

upon information and belief, have issued and currently have in effect one or more policies of insurance

covering one or more of the Defendants named herein.

IV. FACTS
36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

37. On October 30, 2000, the Orleans District Attorney charged Rodney in a bill of information with

4
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 5 of 10

simple burglary.

38. On November 10, 2000, Rodney was due to be arraigned, but the court was closed that day. As a

result, an arraignment was reset for November 29, 2000. A summons was mailed for him, but Rodney

never received it. Because he didnt receive the summons, he couldnt appear for the arraignmentbut

the court nevertheless issued a warrant for his arrest.

39. Rodney was arrested on September 14, 2008. He served seven years at Dixon Correctional

Institute until June 25, 2015, when he was released subject to probation until 2023.

40. On June 27, 2016, while trying to obtain a drivers license, Rodney was arrested pursuant to the

nearly sixteen-year-old warrant. At his arraignment on June 30, 2016, Rodney pled guilty as charged to

one count of simple burglary, and the Judge sentenced him to one year with credit for the seven years he

previously served.

41. The same day of his arraignment, the Judge told the Sheriffs attorney, Blake Arcuri, to have

OPSO expedite processing for Rodneys release. On June 30, 2016, Arcuri emailed OPSO officials

including Defendant Marlin Gusman, Defendant Carmen DeSadier, Defendant Sidney Holt, and

Defendant Djuana Bierriaabout the Judges order, stating Rodney really shouldnt have to actually

serve any time once DOC processes it and that his sentence was one year DOC credit for time served

from 2008-present.

42. In less than an hour and a half, Defendant Gusman responded to Blake Arcuris email, stating

that once Rodney enters a plea and is sentenced, they could have DOC compute his time. That same

morning, Defendant Holt responded that he forwarded Arcuris email to DOC Classifications Deputy for

OPSO, Defendant Corey Amacker, and would have him contact DOC and see what can be done.

43. Defendant Amacker emailed Arcuri that he would work on getting Rodneys packet to the DOC

on July 1, 2016, which was the following day. It was not until July 7, 2016, however, that DOC sent

OPSO an inmate transfer request, containing Rodneys name with July 12, 2016, as the transfer date.

44. Rodney remained at Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) until July 12, 2016, when OPSO

relinquished authority to DOC. He underwent processing at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St.

Gabriel, Louisiana, on July 12, 2016.

45. During processing, Rodney explained he was granted credit for time served and should be

released. Rodney received confirmation from an official that his sheet indicated no sentence.

However, the same day of processing, DOC transferred Rodney to Madison Parish Correctional Center

(MPCC) operated by Defendant LaSalle Corrections (LaSalle) in Tallulah, Louisiana.

46. Rodneys friend, Alfred Marshall, became concerned for Rodney. On or around July 15, 2016,
5
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 6 of 10

Alfred spoke with Judge Buras, who then called the Sheriff and MPCC Warden Chris Stinson.

47. In further attempt to effectuate Rodneys release, Orleans Parish Public Defender Aaron Zagory

appeared in CDC on July 18, 2016, on Rodneys behalf. That day, the Judge vacated Plaintiffs previous

sentence and resentenced him to only CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED.

48. On July 25, 2016, the Judge called Corrections ARDC Specialist II Irma Ray regarding Rodneys

release. The Judge then called and emailed Kanedra Burton at the DOC.

49. Defendants finally released Plaintiff from MPCC on July 27, 2016. His release occurred twenty-

seven days after the Judge ordered OPSO to expedite processing with DOC. (See Fig. 1, infra.)

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count One Violation of Due Process Pursuant to U.S.C. 42 1983

(All Defendants)

50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

51. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is violated where a prisoner remains

incarcerated after the legal authority to hold him has expired. Douthit v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527, 532 (5th

Cir. 1980). No privilege enables a jailer to detain a prisoner beyond the period of his lawful sentence.

Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781, 791 (5th Cir. 1968); Powell v. Barrett, 376 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1351 (N. D.

Ga. 2005) (detainee has constitutional right to be free from continued detention after it was or should

have been known that he was entitled to release).

52. Once a prisoners sentence has expired, his jailor has a reasonable amount of time to process and

release him. That reasonable time, however, must be well short of forty-eight hours. Barnes v. District of

Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D.D.C. 2011) (In recognition of these facts, courts appear to agree that

the maximum permissible administrative delay in the overdetention context likely falls well short of the

48-hour horizon set out in McLaughlin.). That is because once a detainee is ordered released, the

publics interest in his prompt release is even greater, and the constitutional tolerance for "administrative

delay" is substantially less than in the context of arrestees awaiting probable cause determinations. See

Berry v. Baca, 379 F.3d 764, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2004); Brass v. County of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192,

1202 (9th Cir.2003); Powell v. Barrett, 376 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1353 (N.D.Ga. 2005).

53. Within the 48-hour period, however, it is often a question for juries what is reasonable or

unreasonable. See, e.g., Young v. City of Little Rock, 249 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2001) (resulting in $100,000

jury verdict (upheld on appeal) for plaintiff for 1 hour overdetention at court holding cell and 2 hours

at jail after release order); Barnes, supra, ("[E]ven a thirty-minute detention after being ordered released

could work a violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment."); Arline v.

6
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 7 of 10

City of Jacksonville, 359 F.Supp.2d 1300, 1310 (M.D.Fla.2005) (two and a half hour detention

following acquittal presented jury question under Fourth Amendment).

54. Here, the Judge clearly established Rodneys right to liberty on June 30, 2016, by sentencing him

to one year in prison, credit for the seven years he previously served.

55. The Judge reaffirmed this right when she asked OPSO to expedite processing for Rodneys

release.

56. For the third time, the Judge made his right to liberty unequivocally clear when the she called

Sheriff Gusman and Warden Stinson to ask why Rodney had not been released.

57. That right was made quadruply clear when the Judge vacated Rodneys sentence and replaced it

with CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED.

58. It was quintuply made clear when the Judge called and emailed Irma Ray and Kanedra Burton at

the DOC.

59. The fact that Rodney was not released for twenty-seven days after his sentence expired, after

factoring in the reasonable amount of time to effectuate his release, means that he was overdetained for a

period of more than twenty-five days.

60. As a result of the overdetention described in this Count, Rodney suffered loss of liberty, great

mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous

and continuing injuries.

61. By depriving Rodney of his fundamental right to liberty, Defendants violated the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As Defendants were acting

under the color of state law, Plaintiffs claims are actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Count Two - Violations of the Louisiana Constitution

(All Defendants)

62. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

63. Article One, Section Two of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 guarantees that [n]o person

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.

64. By reason of the same conduct that violated Rodneys federal constitutional rights, Defendants

violated his state constitutional rights to liberty and due process.

65. This conduct resulted in Rodneys overdetention and caused the physical, emotional and

pecuniary damages as described above and below.

Count Four State Law False Imprisonment

(All Defendants)

66. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.
7
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 8 of 10

67. Defendants intentionally detained Rodney when they held him in OPP from June 27,

2016, to July 12, 2016, and then from July 12, 2016, to July 27, 2016, in MPCC.

68. On June 30, 2016, legal authority to detain Rodney expired when the Judge sentenced

him to credit for time previously served. The time Rodney previously served exceeded the duration of

the sentence the Judge imposed. Several Defendants were put on actual notice that Rodney really

shouldnt have to actually serve any time once DOC processes it.

69. Defendants falsely imprisoned Rodney when they unlawfully detained him.

Count Five State Law Negligence

(All Defendants)

70. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

71. Defendants conduct of overdetention described above caused Rodneys harms as described

above and below.

72. Due to their professional roles as jailors, Defendants owed duties to avoid overdetention to the

persons in their custody, including Rodney.

73. These duties were breached by Defendants acts and omissions, including the failure to timely

release Rodney even after repeated inquiries by the Judge.

74. The risks and harms that the Defendants caused were within the scope of protection afforded by

the duties they owed to Plaintiff.

75. As a result of Defendants acts and omissions, Rodney suffered actual, forseeable harm.

Count Six Failure to Intervene

(All Defendants)

76. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

77. In the manner described above, during the constitutional violations described herein, one or more

of the Defendants stood by without intervening to prevent the violation of Rodneys constitutional

rights, even though they had the opportunity to do so.

78. As a result of the Defendants failure to intervene to prevent the violation of Rodneys

constitutional rights, Plaintiff suffered pain and injury, as well as emotional distress. Defendants had

ample, reasonable opportunities to prevent this harm but failed to do so.

Count Seven - Monell and Supervisory Liability

(Sheriff Gusman, Secretary LeBlanc, and LaSalle Corrections)

79. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

80. The misconduct described above was caused by the policies, practices, and customs of

Defendants, in that their employees and agents regularly overdetain persons who are subject to release.

8
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 9 of 10

81. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well settled as to constitute the

de facto policy of the Defendants, were allowed to exist because policymakers with authority over these

acts exhibited deliberate indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.

82. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the driving force behind the

numerous constitutional violations in this case that directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the

grievous and permanent injuries and damages set forth above.

83. Furthermore, the widespread practices described in the preceding paragraphs were

allowed to flourish because Defendants declined to implement sufficient training or any legitimate

mechanism for oversight or punishment of officers and agents.

Count Eight Respondeat Superior

(Sheriff Gusman, Secretary LeBlanc, and LaSalle Corrections)

84. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

85. While committing the misconduct alleged in the preceding paragraphs, some Defendants

and others were employees, members, and agents of Sheriff Gusman, Secretary LeBlanc, or LaSalle

Corrections within the scope of their employment.

86. Defendants Sheriff Gusman, Secretary LeBlanc, and LaSalle Corrections are therefore

liable as principals for all torts committed by their agents.

Count Nine Indemnification

(Sheriff Gusman, Secretary LeBlanc, and LaSalle Corrections)

87. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

88. Louisiana law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for

compensatory damages for which employees are liable for actions taken in the discharge of their duties

that are within the scope of their employment activities.

89. While committing the misconduct alleged in the preceding paragraphs, some Defendants

and others were employees, members, and agents of Sheriff Gusman, Secretary LeBlanc, or LaSalle

Corrections within the scope of their employment.

90. Sheriff Gusman, Secretary LeBlanc, and LaSalle Corrections are therefore obligated by

Louisiana statute to pay any judgment entered against its employees.

Count Ten - State Law Direct Action Claim

(Against Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10)

91. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates each and every foregoing paragraph.

92. Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10, upon information and belief, have issued

and/or currently have in effect one or more policies of insurance covering one or more of the Defendants

9
 Case 2:17-cv-02797 Document 1 Filed 04/02/17 Page 10 of 10

named herein. For valuable consideration received, these policies obligated Defendant ABC Insurance

Companies 1-10, jointly and/or severally, to pay on behalf of their insured Defendant(s) any sums the

insured Defendant(s) may become obligated to pay to Rodney or to indemnify their insured

Defendant(s) for any sums the insured Defendant(s) may become obligated to pay Rodney.

93. By reason of their illegal and unconstitutional acts, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for

all damages and injuries Rodney has suffered as a result. Upon information and belief, Defendant ABC

Insurance Companies 1-10 are contractually obligated to pay these sums on behalf of the insured

Defendant(s).

94. Upon information and belief, Defendant ABC Insurance Companies are liable to

Plaintiff for any and all damages incurred by reason of the insured Defendant(s) acts, up to their policy

limits, notwithstanding the fact that the insured Defendant(s) may themselves be able to assert claims of

privilege or immunity from liability.

95. Under Louisiana Revised Statute 22:655(B), Plaintiff brings a direct action against

Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10 to recover any and all sums they are obligated to pay

Plaintiff on behalf of their insureds or to indemnify their insureds.

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED

96. Wherefore Plaintiff requests judgment be entered against Defendants and that the Court

grant the following:

a. Declaratory relief;

b. Judgment against Defendants for Plaintiffs asserted causes of action;

c. Injunctive relief against Defendants to end their practice of overdetention;

d. Award of compensatory damages;

e. Award of special damages;

f. Award costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, 42 U.S.C. 12205, 28 C.F.R.

35.175, and 29 U.S.C. 794a(b);

g. Order such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, this the second day of April, 2017,

RODNEY GRANT, by and through his counsel,

/s/ William Most__________

WILLIAM MOST
La. Bar No. 36914
201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114, # 101
New Orleans, LA 70170
T: (504) 509-5023
Email: williammost@gmail.com
10