‘THERESA RICHARD and 15 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MITCHEL RICHARD VERSUS DOCKET # 2016-10111, DIV. G ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his ACADIA PARISH, LOUISIANA Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff? Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH SHERIFE’S OFFICE IHG a ei Ra a i ce SO A IA REASONS FOR RULING This matter was set for hearing on the 20th day of March, 2017, on defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. After consideration of the law, evidence, and argument of counsel this court grants the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that Deputy Smith is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for claims brought against them in their individual capacity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L-Ed.2d 396 (1982). Defendants argue that once the qualified immunity defense is invoked the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the defense is ‘unavailable, To meet this burden, plaintiffs must show: (1) claim that the defendants committed a constitutional violation under current law; and, (2) claim that defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the law that was clearly established. Atteberry v. Nocona Gon, Hosp, 430 F.ed 245, 251-52 (Sth Cir. 2005). Defendants assert that Deputy Smith identified Louisiana Revised Statute 44:32 as the law broken by Ms. Richard and detained Ms. Richard for a reasonable amount of time. In support of their Motion for Summary Judgement, defendants offer plaintifls” Petition for Damages and Verifying Affidavit, as well as, a Court Order signed by the Honorable Marilyn C. Castle dated the 15th day of January, 2015. Plaintiffs argue that they had a constitutional right to not only have access to public records, but also to examine and photograph them. Plaintiffs assert that defendants were aware of this constitutional right when they chose to detain Ms. Richard. Tt is apparent the defendants committed constitutional violations under current law. ‘Therefore, defendants are not entitled to a qualified immunity defense. At hearing, plaintiff argues, outside the scope of his opposition, thatthe defendant has not submitted the appropriate evidence in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment and therefore the motion should be denied on that basis alone. This court must determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Deputy Smith is entitled to a qualified immunity defense. ‘A court must grant a motion for summary judgment “[i}f the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatorics, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Catahoula Par, Sch, Bd, v. Louisiana Mach, Rentals, LLC, 2012-2504 (La. 10/15/13), 124 So. 3d 1065, 1071. The mover bears the burden of proof. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966, However, the mover’s burden does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim if he does not bear the burden at the trial on the merits. Jd. He may show an absence of factual support for at least one clement essential to the adverse party’s claim. Id. “Any doubt as to a dispute regarding a material issue of fact must be resolved against granting the motion and in favor of a trial on the mezits.” Smith, 639 $o.2d fers v. ‘Acadia Par. Police Jury, 2015-976 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/6/16), 189 So. 34 571, 575. Louisiana jurisprudence has held that the governmental official has the burden of proving the defense of qualified imusanit . Louisiana Farms v, Louisiana Dep't of Wildlife & Fisheries, 95-845 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/9/98), 685 So. 2d 1086, 1093, writ denied, 97-0486 (La. 4/4/97), 692 So. 2d 420, and writ denied, 97-0507 (La. 4/4/97), 692 So. 2d 422. Once the defendant has moved for summary judgment upon a prima facie showing that it is entitled to immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence that a material factual issue remains. Lewis v. Four Comers Volunicer Fire Dep't, 2008-0354 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/26/08), 994 So. 2d 696, 700 In this case, the defendant has submitted the Petition for Damages and Verified Affidavit of plaintiff as supporting evidence for the Motion for Summary Judgment. Jurisprudence has held that the failure to file any supporting affidavits or depositions with a motion for summary judgment is not fatal to the motion. Hichelberger v. Sidney, 34,040 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/3/00), 771 So. 2d 863, 865, writ denied, 2000-3476 (La. 2/9/01), 785 So. 2d 827. As in Lichelberger, the defendant in this case relies on the petition to show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and mover is entitled to judgment as a mattez of law.‘The Petition for Damages alleges that Ms. Richard had access to public records in the possession of the Acadia Parish Clerk of Court. The plaintiff began to take photos of these records with her cell phone. Thereafter, Deputy Smith intervened and detained the plaintiff. The petition further alleges that: Deputy Smith retrieved a copy of Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:32: Duty to permit examination; prevention of alteration; payment for overtime; copies provided; fees. Deputy Smith told Ms. Theresa Richard that it was the “law that [she] broke.” ‘The law provides that the Clerk of Court is the custodian of the public records and is obligated to make these records available for inspection by the public. La. RS. It further provides that reproduction of these records by privately owned hand held equipment is strictly prohibited unless ordercd by a court of competent jurisdiction. La. RS. 44: 32. It is clear to this court that based on plaintiffs’ own Petition for Damages and Verified Affidavit, all actions taken by Deputy Smith are protected by the qualified immunity doctrine. Therefore, the defendants have meet their initial burden. Once raised, a plaintiff has the burden to rebut the qualified immunity defense by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Collins v, State ex rel, Dep't of Nat. Res., 2013-0284 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/20/13), Plaintiff argues that the reliance on unrelated statutes or non controlling court prohibitions is unreasonable; the public has a right to access public records and a right to photograph them; and the defendant's actions constituted a willful disregard to that right, Plaintiff’ submits no evidence to rebut the ‘qualified immunity defense raised by the plaintiff. As such, plaintiff has filed to mect his burden in rebutting the qualified immunity defense. There is no genuine issue of fact that the defendants are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Therefore, defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. THUS BONE AND SIGNED in Crowley, Louisiana on the 21st day of March, 2017. Laurie A. Hubii, Distaet Judge Fifteenth Judi¢ial Dislict Court £ PLEASE NOTICE: All Counsel of Record yan 8S eT Ud‘THERESA RICHARD and 15™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MITCHEL RICHARD ‘VERSUS DOCKET # 2016-10111, DIV. G ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his ACADIA PARISH, LOUISIANA. Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff” Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE EAAAEEREARAAALMM ESLER AAEM ERR EERE RARER RR RRR ER RRR RERAR EE JUDGMENT ‘Afler consideration of the law, evidence and arguments of counsel and for the reasons assigned in the court’s written Reasons for Ruling; If IS ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that cost of these proceedings be cast to the non-prevailing party. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Crowley, Louisiana on the 21st day of March, 2017. ct Judge Fifteenth Judicial District Court PLEASE NOTICE All Counsel of Record CO ,ACADIA PARISH, LA, ‘ATRUE COPY -ATTEST