Pastor Mark Anthony Spell and First Apostolic Church of East Baton Rouge v. Governor John Bel Edwards

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2026 CA 0286

PASTOR MARK ANTHONY SPELL AND
FIRST APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
PARISH D/ B/A LIFE TABERNACLE CHURCH

VERSUS

GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA; ROGER CORCORAN9 IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE
OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL, LOUISIANA; AND
SID GAUTREAUX, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH

Judgment Rendered:

aq)

On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Trial Court Docket Number C753362, Div./Sec. 26

Honorable Richard " Chip" Moore, Judge Presiding

Jeffrey S. Wittenbrink Counsel for Plaintiffs/ Appellants,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Pastor Mark Anthony Spell and
First Apostolic Church of
East Baton Rouge d/ b/ a
Life Tabernacle Church

James M. Garner Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee,
Joshua S. Force Governor John Bel Edwards,
New Orleans, Louisiana Former Governor of the
State of Louisiana

Charles L. Chassaignac, IV Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees,
Erica M. Andrus Richard Scott Sherwin and
Natalia Vladimurovna Sherwin
Emily S. Morrison
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee,
Mary G. Erlingson
Tara L. Johnston Sid J. Gautreaux, III, Sheriff of
Baton Rouge, Louisiana East Baton Rouge Parish

Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee,
Joy C. Rabalais
Jordan John Henagan Roger Corcoran, Individually and
Grant R. Schexnailder in his Official Capacity as Chief of
Hunter B. Ahia Police of the City of Central,
Lafayette, Louisiana Louisiana

BEFORE: PENZATO, HESTER, STROMBERG, JJ.

2

PENZAT09 J.
Plaintiffs, Mark Anthony " Tony" Spell and Life Tabernacle Church, appeal

a judgment that sustained peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and res

judicata in favor of all defendants, dismissing them from plaintiffs' suit with

prejudice. After review, we affirm. Defendant, former Governor John Bel Edwards,

answered the appeal, seeking reversal of the trial court' s denial of his motion for
sanctions pursuant to La. C. C.P. art. 863 and seeking an award of attorney fees and

costs from this court pursuant to La. C. C.P. arts. 863 and 2164. The answer to the

appeal is denied in part and granted in part.

PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mark Anthony " Tony" Spell, the pastor of Life Tabernacle Church, held

church services in violation of executive orders implemented by then -Governor John

Local law
Bel Edwards in the early months of the COVID- 19 pandemic.

enforcement officials, including Sid Gautreaux, 111, East Baton Rouge Parish

Sheriff; and Roger Corcoran, Chief of Police of the City of Central, enforced the

Governor' s orders by issuing six misdemeanor summons to Spell for violating the

orders. See Spell v. Edwards, 22- 30075, 2023 V& 2110889, * 1 ( unpublished) ( 5th

Cir. 2/ 17/ 23) and State v. Spell, 2021- 00876 ( La. 5/ 13/ 22), 339 So. 3d 1125, 1128.

On May 7, 2020, Pastor Spell and Life Tabernacle Church ( collectively,

Spell") filed their first action against these officials in federal district court (referred

to as the " Middle District"), asserting claims under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 and seeking

injunctive relief and damages for alleged violations of Spell' s rights under the United

States and Louisiana constitutions. See Spell v. Edwards, 579 F. Supp. 3d 806, 813

M.D. La. 2022) and Spell, 2023 WL 2110889 at * 1. Specifically, Spell alleged that

Governor Edwards' indoor crowd -size limits implemented in response to COVID-

19 violated his First Amendment rights to freely assemble and to worship in the

manner required by his faith. Spell, 579 F- Supp.3d at 813. Spell also filed suit in

3

state court in April 2021 ( docket C- 706311), asserting the same federal and state

constitutional claims. Docket 706311 was removed to federal court and consolidated

with that proceeding. See Spell, 579 F. Supp. 3d at 818- 19.

On January 12, 2022, the Middle District dismissed Spell' s federal claims for
damages after concluding that Governor Edwards, Sheriff Gautreaux, and Chief
The
Corcoran were entitled to qualified immunity.' Spell, 579 F. Supp. 3d at 813.

Middle District also dismissed Spell' s claims for injunctive relief as moot, since the

challenged COVID- 19 restrictions expired on their own terms in 2020. Finally, the

Middle District declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spell' s state law

claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Spell, 579 F. Supp.3d at 826;

see 28 U.S. C. § 1368.

Spell appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit but limited his argument, asserting only that church assembly was beyond

the jurisdiction of the government. Spell, 2023 WL 2110889 at * I - In its February

17, 2023 decision, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Spell " expressly waived" other

arguments, including that the defendants' actions violated his constitutional rights

under the current free exercise jurisprudence. Finding no merit in Spell' s

jurisdictional argument, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Middle District' s dismissal of

Spell' s federal claims for damages on grounds of qualified immunity. Spell, 2023

WL 2110889 at * 1. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the dismissal of Spell' s claims

for injunctive relief and found the Middle District did not abuse its discretion by

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spell' s state law claims. Spell,
2023 WL 2110889 at * 2.

I Before this decision was rendered, Spell appealed two prior rulings of the Middle District. See
Spell v. Edwards, 962 F.3d 175 ( 5th Cir. 2020) ( finding Spell' s claim for injunctive relief was
moot, because the stay- at-home order expired on its own terms; appeal dismissed); and Spell v.
Edwards, 849 F. App' x 509, 510 ( 5th Cir. 2021) ( remanding to the district court to analyze Spell' s
claims for damages under strict scrutiny review).

9

Spell thereafter filed this suit, his third, in state court in September 2024, again

asserting claims against Governor Edwards, who left office in January 2024; Sheriff
the government
Gautreaux; and Chief Corcoran ( sometimes referred to as "

defendants). As he did in his federal complaint, Spell alleged that Governor

Edwards' COVID- 19 proclamations and their enforcement against him violated his

constitutional rights protected by the United States and Louisiana constitutions.

Spell also named Richard and Natalia Sherwin, private citizens who allegedly

installed cameras and monitoring devices on/in their home for purposes of

monitoring Spell and church attendees. According to Spell, the Sherwins acted in

concert with the government defendants, at their request, or with their permission.

Spell alleged the defendants were liable in solido for damages and sought injunctive

relief against further constitutional violations.

In response, all defendants urged peremptory exceptions of lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, asserting Spell' s claim for injunctive relief is moot because the

COVID- 19 proclamations at issue expired on their own terms years before the

present suit was filed. See La. C. C. P. art. 927( A)(8). The government defendants

also urged peremptory exceptions of res judicata, asserting the Middle District' s

final decision finding they were entitled to qualified immunity bars relitigation of

the same issues in state court under the doctrine of issue preclusion/ collateral

estoppel. See La. C. C. P. art. 927( A)(3). The Sherwins likewise raised an exception

of res judicata, relying on the Middle District' s final judgment purportedly entered

into the record of Spell' s first state court action ( docket C- 706311). Finally, each

defendant raised an exception of no cause of action, advancing arguments relevant

to Spell' s claims against it. See La. C. C.P. art. 927( A)(3). Pertinently, Governor

Edwards asserted that he was entitled to various immunities, includinv, state officer

qualified immunity under Louisiana law.

5

Governor Edwards also filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to La. C. C.P art.

863, asserting that sanctions against Spell and/ or his counsel were appropriate for
several reasons. Particularly, Governor Edwards noted that Spell sought to enjoin

enforcement of the expired COVID- 19 proclamations and continued to seek

damages for constitutional violations, even after the federal court determined

Governor Edwards was entitled to qualified immunity and Louisiana uses the same

immunity test.

Spell did not file written oppositions to the exceptions or motion for sanctions.

Nevertheless, the trial court, in its discretion, allowed Spell' s counsel to argue in
2
opposition to the exceptions during the July 2025 hearing. Regarding the exception

of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Spell acknowledged the claim for injunctive

relief was " mooted some time ago" and further conceded that he refiled a previous

suit and did not remove that claim. Spell agreed the claim for injunctive relief could

be dismissed. After concluding arguments on the remaining exceptions, as well as

Governor Edwards' motion for sanctions, the trial court took all matters under

advisement. Thereafter, the trial court issued a written judgment, signed on

September 4, 2025, sustaining the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction

per the stipulation of the parties; sustaining the exception of res judicata and the

exception of no cause of action in favor of all defendants, and dismissing all claims

asserted by Spell against the defendants, with prejudice. Finally, the September 4,

2025 judgment denied Governor Edwards' motion for sanctions.

2 The defendants pertinently supported their exceptions with Governor Edwards' COVID
proclamations, pleadings filed by Spell, and opinions from the Middle District and the Fifth
Circuit. Two defendants offered, filed, and introduced their exhibits into evidence during the July
2025 hearing. Later, when discussing exhibits with counsel, the trial court stated, " All exhibits
have been attached." ( Emphasis added.) We presume the trial court intended to " admit" all

exhibits. Additionally, we may take judicial notice of Governor Edwards' proclamations pursuant
to La. C. E. art. 202( B)( a) and consider the opinions rendered by the federal courts, which set forth
the procedural history of the Spell litigation.

0

The trial court also issued written reasons. In its discussion regarding the

exceptions of res judicata, the court concluded that all elements of federal issue

preclusion were satisfied. As to the exceptions of no cause of action, the trial court

found that, accepting all contents of Spell' s petition as true, Governor Edwards was
entitled to state officer qualified immunity. The court further concluded that Spell

failed to plead any facts that in any way purported to establish that the Sherwins
conspired with the other defendants to commit an intentional tort. The trial court did

not provide reasons for sustaining the exceptions of no cause of action filed by
Sheriff Gautreaux and Chief Corcoran.

Spell timely filed this appeal, and Governor Edwards timely answered the
Governor
appeal, citing error in the trial court' s denial of his motion for sanctions.
Edwards further sought an award of attorney fees and costs from this court pursuant

to La. C. C.P. arts. 863( D) and 2164.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

Spell identified three assignments of error. First, he asserts the trial court

erred by ruling the matter was resjudicata as to all defendants where the Fifth Circuit
did not adjudicate all claims, because he abandoned and waived substantive

arguments ( regarding qualified immunity). Instead, Spell attempted to " obtain a

pure decision on the issue of jurisdiction[.]" Spell further maintains the Middle

District' s ruling was clearly erroneous, as acknowledged by the Fifth Circuit.
Second, Spell asserts the trial court erred by ruling the matter was res judicata

as to all defendants where the state court claims were dismissed without prejudice

by the federal court, without being ruled upon. Spell contends the state court issues

7

of qualified immunity are not identical to the federal court issues and were, therefore,
never litigated.'

Third, Spell contends the trial court erred " in ruling on a finding of qualified

immunity" where the Louisiana Supreme Court previously found a violation of the

U.S. Constitution as to Spell, and the Fifth Circuit indicated that longstanding U.S.

law regarding freedom of religion would overcome the ruling of the federal trial
court on qualified immunity, but for Spell' s waiver of the pertinent arguments.

Sheriff Gautreaux and Chief Corcoran

Spell' s first two assignments of error strictly relate to the trial court' s ruling

on the defendants' exceptions of res judicata. Reading Spell' s third assignment of

error broadly, it may refer to the trial court' s finding that Governor Edwards was
entitled to qualified immunity under Louisiana law, as stated in the court' s reasons
However, the trial
for sustaining the Governor' s exception of no cause of action.

court did not expressly find that Sheriff Gautreaux and Chief Corcoran were entitled

to qualified immunity as the basis for sustaining their exceptions of no cause of

action. No arguments advanced by Spell on appeal relate to the trial court' s decision

to sustain the exceptions of no cause of action in favor of Sheriff Gautreaux and

Chief Corcoran. Therefore, the only issue related to these defendants before this

court for review is the portion of the September 4, 2025 judgment that sustained their

exceptions of res judicata. The correctness of the trial court' s ruling on these

defendants' exceptions of no cause of action is not before us for review. See Rule

1- 3, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal; see also Boyd v. Johnson, 2025-

3 Spell further asserts that " certain actions" taken by Governor Edwards were beyond the scope of
his authority, giving rise to personal liability. However, Spell did not identify the referenced
actions allegedly taken by Governor Edwards and did not brief the issue. He likewise did not argue
this before the trial court or offer evidence to support his allegation. Thus, we do not address this
unsupported contention, which we consider abandoned. See Royer v. Our Lady of the Lake
Hospital, Inc., 2017- 1764 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 22/ 19), ( unpublished), 2019 WL 851165, * 11, writ
denied, 2019- 0489 ( La. 5/ 28/ 19), 273 So. 3d 307 ( All assignments of error and issues for review
must be briefed. The court may consider as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review
which has not been briefed.) See, Rule 2- 12. 4( B)(4), Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.

0989 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 28/ 26), ( unpublished) 2026 WL 1514436, * 7 and Council v.

Livingston, 2016- 1228 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 9/ 20/ 17), 410 So. 3d 220, 235, writ denied,

2017- 1773 ( La. 12/ 5/ 17), 231 So. 3d 30.

As a result, even if this court were to reverse the portion of the September 4,

2025 judgment that sustained the exceptions of res judicata in favor of Sheriff

Gautreaux and Chief Corcoran, the suit would still be dismissed against these

defendants by virtue of the remaining portion, which sustained the exceptions of no

cause of action in favor of all defendants. It is well settled that courts will not decide

abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions. Joseph v.
Therefore, we
Ratcliff, 2010- 1342 ( La. App. I Cir. 3/ 25/ 11), 63 So.3d 220, 225.

affirm the portion of the September 4, 2025 judgment that sustained the exceptions

of no cause of action in favor of Sheriff Gautreaux and Chief Corcoran.

Richard and Natalia Sherwin

As private actors, the Sherwins were not entitled to the protection of qualified

immunity, which is available only to state actors. See City ofEscondido, California

v. Emmons, 586 U.S. 38, 42, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503, 202 L.Ed.2d 455 (2019). On appeal,

Spell makes no arguments related to the Sherwins. Therefore, the correctness of the

trial court' s ruling as it relates to the Sherwins is likewise not before us for review.

See Rule 1- 3, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal; Boyd, 2026 WL

1514436 at * 7. We affirm the portion of the September 4, 2025 judgment that

sustained the exception of no cause of action in favor of Richard Sherwin and Natalia

Sherwin.

Governor Edwards

When a state court is called upon to decide the preclusive effect of a judgment

rendered by a federal court exercising federal question jurisdiction, the federal law
of res judicata must be applied. Watson Memorial Spiritual Temple of Christ v.

Korban, 2024- 00055 ( La. 6/ 28/ 24), 387 So. 3d 499, 504, cert. denied, 145 S. Ct.

LO,

1169, 221 L. Ed. 2d 251 ( 2025). Federal appellate courts reviewing the res judicata

effect of a prior judgment apply, the de novo standard of review. Watson, 387 So. 3d

at 504; Sellers v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 968 F. 3d 1267, 1272 ( 1 Ith Cir.

2020). 4

udicata" includes both claim preclusion
Under federal law, the phrase " res judicata"

res judicata) and issue preclusion ( collateral estoppel). Stewart v. City of

Hammond, 2020- 0851 ( La. App. I Cir. 3/ 29/ 21), 322 So. 3d 1253, 1257. Issue

preclusion, relevant here, bars the relitigation of issues actually litigated and

necessarily decided in an earlier case between the same parties. Once an issue of

ultimate fact is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent

jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different

cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation. Thus, plaintiffs are barred

from relitigating a claim in a subsequent lawsuit where three elements are present:

1) the issue at stake must be identical to the one involved in the prior action; ( 2) the

issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action; and ( 3) the determination

of the issue in the prior action must have been a necessary part of the judgment in

that action. Stewart, 322 So. 3d at 1258.

The Fifth Circuit consistently follows the strict approach to finality of

judgments, linking the availability of an appeal for the prior decision with finality
for issue preclusion purposes. See Hacienda Records, L.P. v. Ramos, 718 F. App' x

223, 229 ( 5th Cir. 2018); see also Stevens v. Hospital Service District No. I of

Tangipahoa Parish, 2025- 0240 ( La. App. I Cir. 12/ 19/ 25), ( unpublished) 2025 VVT

3685011, * 6. Here, Spell had the right to, and did, appeal the Middle District' s

decision to the Fifth Circuit, who affirmed the lower court' s ruling in all respects.

4
Similarly, the standard of review of an exception of res judicata under Louisiana law requires an
appellate court to determine if the trial court' s decision is legally correct. Sutton v. Adams, 2022-
01672 ( La. 3/ 7/ 23), 356 So. 3d 1030, 1032- 33.

10

See 28 U.S. C. § 1291. Therefore, under the strict approach embraced by the Fifth

Circuit, the Middle District' s decision is final for purposes of issue preclusion.

Furthermore, Spell' s strategic decision not to challenge the Middle District' s

qualified immunity finding on the merits constituted a waiver and abandonment of

the argument before the Fifth Circuit. See Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F. 3d 1307, 1316

5th Cir. 1997); Windhauser v. Board ofSupervisors for Louisiana State University

Agricultural and Mechanical College, 360 F. App' x 562, 565 ( 5th Cir. 2010).

See also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777, 123 L.

Ed. 2d 508 ( 1993) ( Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a

known right.)

As Spell points out, two judges on the Fifth Circuit concurred with the

majority and noted that, had Spell not waived the disparate treatment argument, his
This highlights the
victory was all but assured. Spell, 2023 WL 2110889, * 3.
conclusiveness of Spell' s waiver and abandonment of the arguments he now

advances. He forfeited his right and only opportunity to challenge the merits of the

Middle District' s ruling, the correctness of which is immaterial to the res judicata

analysis now before us. The general rule of res judicata requires that errors

underlying a judgment be corrected on appeal or other available proceedings to

modify the judgment or to set it aside and not made the basis of a second action on
the same claim. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F. 3d 496, 500 ( 5th

Cir. 2004). Whether the first judgment on the merits was correct does not enter into

the res judicata analysis; even a purportedly incorrect judgment is entitled to res

judicata effect. Procter & Gamble Co., 376 F. 3d at 500. Therefore, we find no

merit in Spell' s first assignment of error.

Spell next argues res judicata does not apply because the state law claims

were dismissed without prejudice. However, this court has previously applied issue

preclusion to bar the plaintiff from relitigating an issue decided by a federal court

11

where the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. See Stewart, 322

So. 3d at 1257, and Webb v. Morella, 2016- 1153 ( La. App. I Cir. 6/ 21/ 17), 224 So. 3d

406, 409. This argument likewise has no merit.

Spell also contends that state and federal issues of qualified immunity are not

identical and, therefore, were not litigated in the federal proceeding. Spell does not

identify the issues he contends are unique to the Louisiana qualified immunity
analysis, except to cite the Louisiana Supreme Court' s decision, State v. Spell, 339

So. 3d at 1140, wherein the court quashed the misdemeanor summons issued to Spell

for his violations of Governor Edwards' COVID- 19 orders. The supreme court

concluded the orders did not satisfy strict scrutiny analysis under the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution and were unconstitutional as applied

to Spell. State v. Spell, 339 So. 3d at 1140.

After review, we find nothing in the supreme court' s Spell opinion that would

warrant a different state officer qualified immunity analysis under Louisiana law,

particularly considering qualified immunity applies to civil claims for damages.
Similar to the First Amendment,' the Louisiana Constitution states, " No law shall be

enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." La. Const. Article 1, § 8; State v. Spell, 339 So -3d at 1131. Louisiana and

federal courts likewise apply the same qualified immunity analysis, shielding

government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

have known. See City ofEscondido, California, 586 U.S. at 42, 139 S. Ct. at 503;

Cunningham v. Castloo, 983 F. 3d 185, 190 ( 5th Cir. 2020); Moresi v. State Through

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So.2d 1081, 1094 ( La. 1990); and Mills v.

Whether an
Tarver, 2021- 0666 ( La. App. I Cir. 12/ 30/ 21), 340 So. 3d 959, 967.

5 The First Amendment pertinently states, " Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion[] or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ... or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble[.]" U.S. C. A. Const. Amend. I.

12

official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for allegedly
unlawful official actions generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the

action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the

action was taken. Williams v. Board of Supervisors, Louisiana Community &

Technical College Systems, 2018- 554 ( La. App. 3 Cir. 5/ 15/ 19), 272 So. 3d 84, 92.

Therefore, the issue at stake in Spell' s state action — whether Governor

Edwards' conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

which a reasonable person would have known —is identical to the one involved in

the federal proceeding. As discussed, the issue was actually litigated in the federal

proceeding through appeal, where Spell waived and abandoned his right to challenge
the Middle District' s qualified immunity determination. Finally, whether Governor

Edwards and the remaining defendants were entitled to qualified immunity was the

central focus of and a necessary part of the final judgment in the federal action.

For these reasons, we affirm the portion of the September 4, 2025 judgment that

sustained Governor Edwards' exception of res judicata, and pretermit consideration

of whether the trial court properly sustained the Governor' s exception of no cause

of action.

GOVERNOR EDWARDS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

In his answer to Spell' s appeal, Governor Edwards asserts the trial court erred

by denying his motion for sanctions and urges this court to award attorney fees and
costs incurred on appeal pursuant to La. C. C. P arts. 863( D) and 2164. Spell did not

oppose or otherwise address Governor Edwards' answer to the appeal.

Trial Court' s Ruling on Motion for Sanctions

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 863, the basis of Governor

Edwards' motion for sanctions, pertinently provides that every pleading of a party

represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his
individual name. The attorney' s signature shall constitute a certification by him that

13

he has read the pleading, and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief formed after reasonable inquiry, he pertinently certifies:

1) The pleading is not being presented for any improper purpose, such
as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation.

2) Each claim, defense, or other legal assertion in the pleading is
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
3) Each allegation or other factual assertion in the pleading has
evidentiary support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual
assertion, is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

La. C. C. P. art. 863( B). Article 863 imposes an affirmative duty on attorneys and

litigants to make an objectively reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law. Landry

v. Landry, 2021- 0337 ( La. App. I Cir. 10/ 8/ 21), 331 So. 3d 351, 356, writ denied,

2022- 00044 ( La. 3/ 2/ 22), 333 So. 3d 835.

If,upon motion of any party, the court determines that a certification has been
made in violation of Article 863, the court shall impose upon the person who made

the certification or the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which

may include an order to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses

incurred because of the filing of the pleading, including reasonable attorney fees.

La. C. C.P. art. 863( D); see Landry, 331 So.3d at 356 ( recognizing that, once a court

finds a violation of Article 863, the imposition of sanctions is mandatory.)

In determining whether an attorney has breached the affirmative duty imposed

by Article 863, the trial court should test the signer' s conduct by inquiring what was
reasonable to believe at the time the pleading was submitted. Furthermore, Article

863 is intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances; where there is even

the slightest justification for the assertion of a legal right, sanctions are not

warranted. A trial court' s determination regarding the imposition of sanctions is

14

6
subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. Landry, 331 So. 3d

at 356.

During the hearing on the motion for sanctions, Spell' s counsel denied the
Counsel
lawsuit was frivolous and maintained his belief the suit was " good."

admitted that he refiled the same lawsuit because he was unsure of the effect of

He further stipulated
making changes to the suit and wanted to avoid prescription.

that the claim for injunctive relief was moot but was nevertheless included in the

September 2024 petition. Regarding Spell' s failure to oppose the exceptions and

motions, Spell' s counsel stated that he is " just a one- man shop and most of the stuff

he does for Spell] is pro bono, and [ he has] to keep all the wheels spinning."

Counsel indicated he became overwhelmed when he began to read Governor

Edwards' exceptions and 374 pages of exhibits ( which primarily consisted of prior

pleadings and Spell judicial decisions). Finally, Spell' s counsel stated that he

missed a step or two" in recent years due to health problems.7

In its written reasons, the trial court acknowledged the arguments made by

counsel for Governor Edwards hold merit but stated it was " not deaf to the problems

articulated by counsel for Pastor Spell and the health issues he has endured over the

recent years."

We are constrained by the applicable standard of review to find no manifest

error in the trial court' s implicit factual determination that Article 863 was not

violated. The trial court concluded that factual reasons other than those prohibited

by Article 863( B) were the cause of the complained -of conduct outlined in Governor

6 Under the manifest error standard, the appellate court does not decide whether the factfinder was
right or wrong; rather, it is required to consider the entire record to determine whether a reasonable
factual basis exists for the finding and whether the finding is manifestly erroneous or clearly
wrong. Ramos v. Louisiana Fara Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 2021- 0228 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
12/ 9/ 21), 333 So. 3d 453, 457.

7 We note the explanations offered by Spell' s counsel fail to address the repetitive and duplicitous
actions, which border on an abuse of the judicial system. See Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., 2011-
0318 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 9/ 7/ 11), 73 So. 3d 407, 414, writ denied, 2011- 2333 ( La. 12/ 2/ 11), 76 So. 3d
1179.

15

Edwards' motion for sanctions and Spell' s failure to oppose the exceptions and

motion. An appellate court must not reweigh the evidence or substitute its own

factual findings because it would have decided the case differently. Ramos v.
333
Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 2021- 0228 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 9/ 21),

So. 3d 453, 457.

Sanctions far Frivolous Appeal

To the extent Governor Edwards asks this court to award sanctions pursuant

to Article 863, this court has no such authority. The ability to impose sanctions

under Article 863 is limited to the trial court. Hampton v. Greenfield, 618 So. 2d

859, 862 ( La. 1993). Instead, an appellate court may regulate conduct before it by

awarding damages, including attorney fees, for frivolous appeal pursuant to La.
C. C. P. art. 2164. Hampton, 618 So. 2d at 862.

Appeals are favored, and damages for frivolous appeal are only allowed when

it is obvious the appeal was taken solely for delay or counsel is not sincere in the

view of the law he advocates. Benoist v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., 2022- 0879

La. App. I Cir. 3/ 1/ 23), 362 So. 3d 957, 963. An appeal may also be frivolous if it

does not present a substantial legal. question. IPF22, LLC v. Frazier, 2024- 0772 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 6/ 6/ 25), 421 So3d 181, 190, writ denied, 2025- 00864 ( La. 10/ 22/ 25),

419 So. 3d 797; Haydel v. Mollere, 24- 566 ( La. App. 5 Cir. 4/ 23/ 25), 414 So. 3d 1,

10 ( awarding $ 1, 500.00 in attorney fees for frivolous appeal due in part to

appellant' s failure to cite any legal authority to counter appellee' s arguments

regarding the primary issues before the court.) However, the slightest justification

for an appeal precludes damages for frivolous appeal. Benoist, 362 So. 3d at 963.

Here, the appeal record was lodged on March 5, 2026. At that time, briefing

deadlines were set, with Spell' s brief due on March 30, 2026. After Spell failed to

timely file an appellant brief, a notice of abandonment was issued on April 13, 2026,

advising Spell that his appeal would be dismissed if a briefwas not filed on or before

16

May 13, 2026. On May 13, 2026 at 11: 51 pm, Spell filed a noncompliant brief,

specifically, a brief he filed with the Fifth Circuit on December 30, 2020. On May

14, 2026, this court did not allow the brief to be filed and notified Spell that his brief

failed to comply with the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. Later that

night, Spell filed an application for rehearing, claiming the Fifth Circuit brief was

accidentally filed with this court and urging this court to reinstate the appeal.

Governor Edwards, along with the other defendants, filed written oppositions to the

application for rehearing.

This court dismissed Spell' s appeal on May 19, 2026, but subsequently

granted the application for rehearing on July 2, 2026, noting Spell' s appellant brief

was attached to the application for rehearing. However, Spell' s eight -page brief

consisted primarily of procedural history and failed to present a substantial legal

question. He offered no legal support for the arguments he advanced, which are

contrary to well settled law. Additionally, Spell quoted the full text from the Fifth

Circuit' s concurring opinion, which clearly reflects the finality of his decision to

waive substantive arguments before that court. Yet, he entirely disregarded the

consequences of that decision and argued before this court that the claims were not

adjudicated and had not been fully litigated in any court.

This, combined with the delay tactics employed prior to submitting his brief,

leads this court to conclude this appeal was taken solely for delay and/ or that Spell' s

counsel is not sincere in the view of the law he advocates. See Benoist, 362 So. 3d

at 963. Consequently, we grant Governor Edwards' answer to the appeal in part and

award $ 1, 500.00 in attorney fees to Governor Edwards, against Spell, for work

performed on this appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the portions of the September 4, 2025

judgment that sustained the peremptory exceptions of no cause of action in favor of

17

Sheriff Sid Gautreaux, 111; Chief of Police Roger Corcoran; Richard Sherwin; and

Natalia Vladimuovna Sherwin and against Mark Anthony Spell and dismissed these

parties with prejudice.

We further affirm the portion of the September 4, 2025 judgment that

sustained the peremptory exception of resjudicata in favor of John Bel Edwards and

against Mark Anthony Spell and dismissed John Bel Edwards with prejudice.

Finally, John Bel Edwards' answer to the appeal is denied in part; we affirm the
portion of the September 4, 2025 judgment that denied his motion for sanctions

pursuant to La. C. C.P. art. 863 and deny the request to award sanctions pursuant to

Article 863 for Spell' s conduct before this court. We grant John Bel Edwards'

answer to the appeal in part and award $ 1, 500. 00 in his favor and against Mark

All costs of this appeal are cast against
Anthony Spell for this frivolous appeal.

Mark Anthony Spell.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. ANSWER TO APPEAL DENIED IN PART,
GRANTED IN PART; SANCTIONS AWARDED.

18