Hazel Jones v. the Geo Group, Inc. F/K/A Wackenhut

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

08-1276

HAZEL JONES, ON BEHALF OF
HER MINOR GRANDCHILDREN,
COURTLAND JONES, KAYURA JONES,
AND HILTON JONES, III

VERSUS

THE GEO GROUP, INC., FORMERLY
KNOWN AS WACKENHUT
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION,
WARDEN KENT ANDREWS, WARDEN
MICHAEL ESTES, ASSOCIATE WARDEN
BILL CRUCHER, CAPTAIN WALTER
GARNETT, SERGEANT PATRICIA
MAPEL, AND GUARD LASHONDA HALL

************

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. C-2008-226
HONORABLE PATRICIA C. COLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

************

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Michael G. Sullivan, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Joseph F. Gaar, Jr.
Jason M. Welborn
J.P. D’Albor
Post Office Drawer 2069
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
(337) 233-3185
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Hazel Jones, on behalf of her minor grandchildren,
Courtland Jones, Kayura Jones, and Hilton Jones, III

Samuel B. Gabb
Loftin, Cain, Gabb & LeBlanc, L.L.C.
113 Dr. Michael Debakey Drive
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
(337) 310-4300
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
The GEO Group, Inc., Kent Andrews, Mark Estes,
Murray Crutcher, Walter Garnett, and Patricia Mapel

Joseph R. Pousson, Jr.
Plauché, Smith & Neiset
1123 Pithon Street
Post Office Drawer 1705
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1705
(337) 436-0522
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
LaShonda Hall

GENOVESE, Judge.

Plaintiff, Hazel Jones, on behalf of her minor grandchildren, Courtland Jones,

Kayura Jones, and Hilton Jones, III, appeals the trial court’s judgment sustaining

Defendants’ peremptory exception of res judicata, which dismissed Plaintiff’s claims

with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action filed on May 12, 2008, by Hazel Jones, the

mother of the deceased, Hilton Jones. Ms. Jones, on behalf of Mr. Jones’ three minor

children, Courtland Jones, Kayura Jones, and Hilton Jones, III, filed suit pursuant to

La.Civ.Code art. 2315.21 against the GEO Group, Inc., formerly known as Wackenhut

1
Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.2 provides:

A. If a person dies due to the fault of another, suit may be brought by the
following persons to recover damages which they sustained as a result of the death:

(1) The surviving spouse and child or children of the
deceased, or either the spouse or the child or children.

(2) The surviving father and mother of the deceased, or either
of them if he left no spouse or child surviving.

(3) The surviving brothers and sisters of the deceased, or any
of them, if he left no spouse, child, or parent surviving.

(4) The surviving grandfathers and grandmothers of the
deceased, or any of them, if he left no spouse, child, parent, or sibling
surviving.

B. The right of action granted by this Article prescribes one year from the
death of the deceased.

C. The right of action granted under this Article is heritable, but the
inheritance of it neither interrupts nor prolongs the prescriptive period defined in this
Article.

D. As used in this Article, the words “child”, “brother”, “sister”, “father”,
“mother”, “grandfather”, and “grandmother” include a child, brother, sister, father,
mother, grandfather, and grandmother by adoption, respectively.

E. For purposes of this Article, a father or mother who has abandoned the
deceased during his minority is deemed not to have survived him.

1

Corrections Corporation (GEO Group), the company that staffs Allen Parish

Correctional Center (APCC) in Kinder, Louisiana, as well as employees of GEO

Group at the time of Mr. Jones’ death, namely, Warden Kent Andrews, Warden Mark

Estes,2 Associate Warden Murray Crutcher,3 Captain Walter Garnett, Guard Lashonda

Hill, and Sergeant Patricia Mapel (hereinafter collectively referred to as

“Defendants”). Plaintiff’s petition alleges that Defendants negligently failed to

protect Mr. Jones, an inmate at APCC, from another inmate at APCC, Shavis Toby.

Mr. Toby allegedly stabbed Mr. Jones to death at APCC on January 19, 2005.

Plaintiff’s petition seeks damages for Defendants’ alleged “deliberate indifference to

the health and well[-]being of [Mr.] Jones[.]”

On May 27, 2008, Defendants filed a Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata

and Declinatory Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Defendants

alleged that Plaintiff initially filed a federal complaint on January 13, 2006, against

Defendants in the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, for

alleged constitutional violations arising under U.S. Const. amend. VIII4 and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.5 According to Defendants, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal

2
According to Defendants’ Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata and Declinatory Exception
of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s petition incorrectly referred to Warden Mark Estes
as “Warden Michael Estes.”
3
According to Defendants’ Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata and Declinatory Exception
of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s petition incorrectly referred to Associate Warden
Murray Crutcher as “Associate Warden Bill Crucher.”
4
United States Constitution Amendment VIII provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
5
In pertinent part, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

2

complaint by judgment dated March 20, 2008, pursuant to a motion for summary

judgment filed by Defendants. In the case at bar, Defendants’ peremptory exception

asserted that Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed based upon the legal doctrine of res

judicata.

The trial court heard and sustained Defendants’ exception of res judicata on

August 6, 2008. At the conclusion of the hearing on Defendants’ peremptory

exception of res judicata, the trial court declared, in pertinent part:

I don’t think anyone disagrees that the same [P]laintiff[] filed suit in
federal court against the same [D]efendants and under the same facts
and transactions. [Plaintiff] used the 1983 and Eighth Amendment claim
for the same damages [Plaintiff is] asking for in the state’s [sic] suit.
[Plaintiff] didn’t allege the state claims of negligence under
[La.Civ.Code art.] 2315 or 2315.1 [sic]. The federal suit was dismissed
with prejudice in a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the
[D]efendants. . . . [F]irst of all[,] it is clear that both . . . suits arise out
of the same transaction[,] there is no question as to that. It is also clear
from a reading of the reasons in Judge Trimble’s case that the judgment
was based on the merits of the case. Secondly[,] the court disagreed
with the [P]laintiff’s assertion that the federal court did not have pendent
jurisdiction over the state claim in this matter. Pendent jurisdiction
exists when there is a valid federal claim and the relationship between
the federal claim and the state claim is such that they derive from a
common nucleus of operative facts so that if considered without regard
to their federal or state character [P]laintiff would have ordinarily be[en]
expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding. And both of them
arise out of the same set of facts. So, it is clear that there is pendent
jurisdiction. So, lastly[,] we have to look at whether or not the federal
court would have declined to exercise that pendent jurisdiction over the
admitted state claims. And it is true that it is a doctrine of discretion,
and that the federal courts have great latitude in deciding whether or not
to exercise it. And . . . they look at judicial economy, convenience,
fairness[,] and comity. The case at hand, I don’t think it contains
exceptional facts. I don’t see it that way. And just like in [Reeder v.
Succession of Palmer, 623 So.2d 1268 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
1165, 114 S.Ct. 1191 (1994)], the federal court is the only for[um] . . .
where all of the claims could have been resolved. It is not enough, just
like [Reeder] said, that the federal court had the power to decline or that
it possibly or probably would have declined. It must be clearly shown.
And I don’t think that is the case here. I don’t think it is clearly shown
that they would have declined. So, I’m going to grant the [e]xception of
[res judicata], and this matter is dismissed.

3

A judgment to this effect was signed by the trial court on August 18, 2008.6 It is from

this judgment that Plaintiff appeals.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In her sole assignment of error, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he trial court erred in

granting the exception of res judicata, in favor of [D]efendants/[A]ppellees, and

determining that the Honorable James Trimble, and the U.S. District Court for the

Western District, could have exercised pendent jurisdiction, over the [s]tate law

claims, filed in the [s]tate [c]ourt action.”

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The standard of review of a ruling sustaining an exception of res judicata is

manifest error when the exception is raised prior to the case being submitted and

evidence is received from both parties. State ex rel. Sabine River Auth. v. Meyer &

Assocs. Inc., 07-214, 07-215 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/07), 967 So.2d 585. Such is the

case in the instant matter.

Plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in holding that the present action was

barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In brief, Plaintiff asserts:

After the dismissal of the [f]ederal court case, Ms. Jones filed a
[s]tate [c]ourt action, asserting the wrongful death and negligence claims
against the same [D]efendants. These wrongful death claims were the
stand[-]alone claims, belonging to the children of the decedent, Hilton
Jones, and were not symbiotic claims for violations of Mr. Jones’ civil
rights. In other words, these were stand[-]alone suits, based upon the
rights created by Louisiana law, for the benefits of the direct heirs and
descendants of the deceased. By contrast, the [f]ederal question
jurisdiction over the [42 U.S.C. § 1983 and U.S. Const. amend. VIII]
claims[] were symbiotic rights of the children, based upon those rights
owed to the deceased himself. This distinction would become critical

6
The judgment did not contain the trial court’s disposition of Defendants’ exception of lack
of subject matter jurisdiction; thus, the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction is presumed
to have been denied by the trial court, and said denial has not been appealed nor is it before this court
for review. See M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16.

4

in an analysis of the application of the bodies of law, controlling the
filing of [s]tate [c]ourt petitions.

Defendants contend that the trial court correctly relied upon Reeder, 623 So.2d

1268, when it sustained their peremptory exception of res judicata and dismissed

Plaintiff’s state court claims. We agree.

The analysis for a peremptory exception of res judicata is well-settled:

The courts of this state have repeatedly confirmed that federal law
is applicable to consideration of whether a federal court judgment has
res judicata effect. See Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Ref. Co.,
95-0654 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 624; Reeder v. Succession of Palmer,
623 So.2d 1268 (La.1993); Bobby and Ray Williams P’ship, L.L.P. v.
Shreveport Louisiana Hayride Co., L.L.C., 38,866 (La.App. 2 Cir.
9/22/04), 882 So.2d 676, writ denied, 04-2636 (La.12/17/04), 888 So.2d
875; McCollough v. Dauzat, 98-1293 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/99), 736 So.2d
914. As explained in Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, 666 So.2d at 633,
federal res judicata law indicates that a judgment bars a subsequent suit
if the following requirements are satisfied: “1) both cases involve the
same parties; 2) the prior judgment was rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction; 3) the prior decision was a final judgment on the
merits; and 4) the same cause of action is at issue in both cases.” There
are, however, exceptions to the law of res judicata. Id. Namely, the law
of res judicata may be inapplicable if there is an express reservation of
a claim that the defendant acquiesces in or if the court in the first action
expressly reserves the plaintiff’s right to pursue a subsequent action. Id.

Green v. Iberia Parish Sch. Bd., 06-1060, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/20/06), 945 So.2d

940, 943, writ denied, 07-111 (La. 3/16/07), 952 So.2d 697.

We have reviewed Plaintiff’s petition in this case in light of the filings

contained in the record related to Plaintiff’s federal court suit against Defendants. We

find that all of the elements necessary for the application of res judicata are, in fact,

present. Plaintiff’s federal and state suits involved the same parties. The prior

judgment was a final judgment and was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Finally, the death of Mr. Jones is at issue in both cases. Therefore, we find no

manifest error in the trial court’s determination that the federal court’s judgment bars

5

Plaintiff’s present state court case by virtue of the legal doctrine of res judicata.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court sustaining

Defendants’ peremptory exception of res judicata. All costs of these proceedings are

assessed against Plaintiff/Appellant, Hazel Jones, on behalf of her minor

grandchildren, Courtland Jones, Kayura Jones, and Hilton Jones, III.

AFFIRMED.

6