Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb
Timestamp: 2018-04-21 04:31:19
Document Index: 663210663

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1983', '§1983', '§1983', '§1983', '§1983', '§1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Amicus curiae brief supporting appellants, by Louisiana District Attorneys Association | Thompson v. Connick | Tad Bartlett - JDSupra
No. 07-30443 _____________________________________ In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ______________________________________ JOHN THOMPSON Plaintiff-Appellee versus HARRY F. CONNICK, in his official capacity as District Attorney; ERIC DUBELIER, in his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney; JAMES WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney; EDDIE JORDAN, in his official capacity as District Attorney; ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Defendants -Appellants ________________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Civil Action No. 2:03-CV-2045, Division “J” the Honorable Carl J. Barbier, presiding _________________________________________ En Banc Amicus Curiae Brief Filed on Behalf of Louisiana District Attorneys Association in Support of Appellants _________________________________________ RALPH R. ALEXIS, III (LA Bar #02379) Porteous, Hainkel and Johnson, L.L.P. 704 Carondelet Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-3838 Facsimile: (504)-581-4069 Attorneys for Louisiana District Attorneys Association E. PETE ADAMS, (LA Bar #2415) Executive Director LA District Attorneys Association 1645 Nicholson Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70802-8143 Telephone: (225) 343-0171 Facsimile: (225) 387-0237 No. 07-30443 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit JOHN THOMPSON Plaintiff-Appellee versus HARRY F. CONNICK, in his official capacity as District Attorney; ERIC DUBELIER, in his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney; JAMES WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney; EDDIE JORDAN, in his official capacity as District Attorney; ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Defendants -Appellants On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Civil Action No. 2:03-CV-2045, Division “J” the Honorable Carl J. Barbier, presiding En Banc Amicus Curiae Brief Filed on Behalf of Louisiana District Attorneys Association in Support of Appellants RALPH R. ALEXIS, III (LA Bar #02379) E. PETE ADAMS, (LA Bar #2415) Porteous, Hainkel and Johnson, L.L.P. Executive Director 704 Carondelet Street LA District Attorneys Association New Orleans, LA 70130 1645 Nicholson Drive Telephone: (504) 581-3838 Baton Rouge, LA 70802-8143 Facsimile: (504)-581-4069 Telephone: (225) 343-0171 Attorneys for Louisiana District Facsimile: (225) 387-0237 Attorneys Association Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbi No. 07-30443 _____________________________________ In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ______________________________________ JOHN THOMPSON Plaintiff-Appellee versus HARRY F. CONNICK, in his official capacity as District Attorney; ERIC DUBELIER, in his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney; JAMES WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney; EDDIE JORDAN, in his official capacity as District Attorney; ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Defendants -Appellants __________________________________________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. I. Parties: A. John Thompson B Harry Connick C. Eric Dubelier D. James WilliamsNo. 07-30443 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit JOHN THOMPSON Plaintiff-Appellee versus HARRY F. CONNICK, in his official capacity as District Attorney; ERIC DUBELIER, in his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney; JAMES WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Assistant District Attorney; EDDIE JORDAN, in his official capacity as District Attorney; ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Defendants -Appellants CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. I. Parties: A. John Thompson B Harry Connick C. Eric Dubelier D. James Williams Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbii E. Eddie Jordan F. Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. G. Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office H. Louisiana District Attorneys Association, whose members are: 1. Hon. Ricky Babin District Attorney 23rd Judicial District Parishes of Ascension, Assumption and St. James 2. Hon. Charles J. Bailey District Attorney 25th Judicial District Parish of Plaquemines 3. Hon. Trent Brignac District Attorney 13th Judicial District Parish of Evangeline 4. Hon. Bradley R. Burget District Attorney 7th Judicial District Parishes of Catahoula and Concordia 5. Hon. Don M. Burkett District Attorney 11th Judicial District Parish of Sabine 6. Hon. David W. Burton District Attorney 36th Judicial District Parish of Beauregard E. Eddie Jordan F. Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. G. Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office H. Louisiana District Attorneys Association, whose members are: 1. Hon. Ricky Babin District Attorney 23rd Judicial District Parishes of Ascension, Assumption and St. James 2. Hon. Charles J. Bailey District Attorney 25th Judicial District Parish of Plaquemines 3. Hon. Trent Brignac District Attorney 13th Judicial District Parish of Evangeline 4. Hon. Bradley R. Burget District Attorney 7th Judicial District Parishes of Catahoula and Concordia 5. Hon. Don M. Burkett District Attorney 11th Judicial District Parish of Sabine 6. Hon. David W. Burton District Attorney 36th Judicial District Parish of Beauregard Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbiii 7. Hon. Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. District Attorney Parish of Orleans 8. Hon. Michael C. Cassidy District Attorney 31st Judicial District Parish of Jefferson Davis 9. Hon. William R. Coenen, Jr. District Attorney 5th Judicial District Parishes of Franklin, Richland and West Carroll 10. Hon. Paul D. Connick, Jr. District Attorney 24th Judicial District Parish of Jefferson 11. Hon. Samuel C. D’Aquilla District Attorney 20th Judicial District Parishes of East Feliciana and West Feliciana 12. Hon. Thomas Daley District Attorney 40th Judicial District Parish of St. John the Baptist 13. Hon. John F. DeRosier District Attorney 14th Judicial District Parish of Calcasieu 14. Hon. James “Jam” C. Downs District Attorney 9th Judicial District Parish of Rapides 7. Hon. Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. District Attorney Parish of Orleans 8. Hon. Michael C. Cassidy District Attorney 31st Judicial District Parish of Jefferson Davis 9. Hon. William R. Coenen, Jr. District Attorney 5th Judicial District Parishes of Franklin, Richland and West Carroll 10. Hon. Paul D. Connick, Jr. District Attorney 24th Judicial District Parish of Jefferson 11. Hon. Samuel C. D’Aquilla District Attorney 20th Judicial District Parishes of East Feliciana and West Feliciana 12. Hon. Thomas Daley District Attorney 40th Judicial District Parish of St. John the Baptist 13. Hon. John F. DeRosier District Attorney 14th Judicial District Parish of Calcasieu 14. Hon. James “Jam” C. Downs District Attorney 9th Judicial District Parish of Rapides Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbiv 15. Hon. J. Phillip Haney District Attorney 16th Judicial District Parishes of Iberia, St. Martin and St. Mary 16. Hon. Michael Harson District Attorney 15th Judicial District Parishes of Acadia, Lafayette and Vermilion 17. Hon. Richard Z. Johnson, Jr. District Attorney 42nd Judicial District Parish of DeSoto 18. Hon. Jerry L. Jones District Attorney 4th Judicial District Parishes of Morehouse and Ouachita 19. Hon. Julie C. Jones District Attorney 39th Judicial District Parish of Red River 20. Hon. Van H. Kyzar District Attorney 10th Judicial District Parish of Natchitoches 21. Hon. James (Jay) P. Lemoine District Attorney 35th Judicial District Parish of Grant 22. Hon. Robert W. Levy District Attorney 3rd Judicial District Parishes of Lincoln and Union 15. Hon. J. Phillip Haney District Attorney 16th Judicial District Parishes of Iberia, St. Martin and St. Mary 16. Hon. Michael Harson District Attorney 15th Judicial District Parishes of Acadia, Lafayette and Vermilion 17. Hon. Richard Z. Johnson, Jr. District Attorney 42nd Judicial District Parish of DeSoto 18. Hon. Jerry L. Jones District Attorney 4th Judicial District Parishes of Morehouse and Ouachita 19. Hon. Julie C. Jones District Attorney 39th Judicial District Parish of Red River 20. Hon. Van H. Kyzar District Attorney 10th Judicial District Parish of Natchitoches 21. Hon. James (Jay) P. Lemoine District Attorney 35th Judicial District Parish of Grant 22. Hon. Robert W. Levy District Attorney 3rd Judicial District Parishes of Lincoln and Union Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbv 23. Hon. John “Schuyler” Marvin District Attorney 26th Judicial District Parishes of Bossier and Webster 24. Hon. W. Mark McKee District Attorney 37th Judicial District Parish of Caldwell 25. Hon. Hillar Moore District Attorney 19th Judicial District Parish of East Baton Rouge 26. Hon. Harry J. Morel, Jr. District Attorney 29th Judicial District Parish of St. Charles 27. Hon. Camille A. Morvant, II District Attorney 17th Judicial District Parish of Lafourche 28. Hon. H. Todd Nesom District Attorney 33rd Judicial District Parish of Allen 29. Hon. R. Christopher Nevils District Attorney 8th Judicial District Parish of Winn 30. Hon. James E. Paxton District Attorney 6th Judicial District Parishes of East Carroll, Madison and Tensas 23. Hon. John “Schuyler” Marvin District Attorney 26th Judicial District Parishes of Bossier and Webster 24. Hon. W. Mark McKee District Attorney 37th Judicial District Parish of Caldwell 25. Hon. Hillar Moore District Attorney 19th Judicial District Parish of East Baton Rouge 26. Hon. Harry J. Morel, Jr. District Attorney 29th Judicial District Parish of St. Charles 27. Hon. Camille A. Morvant, II District Attorney 17th Judicial District Parish of Lafourche 28. Hon. H. Todd Nesom District Attorney 33rd Judicial District Parish of Allen 29. Hon. R. Christopher Nevils District Attorney 8th Judicial District Parish of Winn 30. Hon. James E. Paxton District Attorney 6th Judicial District Parishes of East Carroll, Madison and Tensas Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbvi 31. Hon. Scott M. Perrilloux District Attorney 21st Judicial District Parishes of Livingston, St. Helena and Tangipahoa 32. Hon. Walter P. Reed District Attorney 22nd Judicial District Parishes of St. Tammany and Washington 33. Hon. Charles A. “Charlie” Riddle, III District Attorney 12th Judicial District Parish of Avoyelles 34. Hon. John F. Rowley District Attorney 34th Judicial District Parish of St. Bernard 35. Hon. Cecil R. Sanner District Attorney 38th Judicial District Parish of Cameron 36. Hon. Charles Rex Scott District Attorney 1st Judicial District Parish of Caddo 37. Hon. Asa A. Skinner District Attorney 30th Judicial District Parish of Vernon 38. Hon. Jonathan M. Stewart District Attorney 2nd Judicial District Parishes of Bienville, Claiborne and Jackson 31. Hon. Scott M. Perrilloux District Attorney 21st Judicial District Parishes of Livingston, St. Helena and Tangipahoa 32. Hon. Walter P. Reed District Attorney 22nd Judicial District Parishes of St. Tammany and Washington 33. Hon. Charles A. “Charlie” Riddle, III District Attorney 12th Judicial District Parish of Avoyelles 34. Hon. John F. Rowley District Attorney 34th Judicial District Parish of St. Bernard 35. Hon. Cecil R. Sanner District Attorney 38th Judicial District Parish of Cameron 36. Hon. Charles Rex Scott District Attorney 1st Judicial District Parish of Caddo 37. Hon. Asa A. Skinner District Attorney 30th Judicial District Parish of Vernon 38. Hon. Jonathan M. Stewart District Attorney 2nd Judicial District Parishes of Bienville, Claiborne and Jackson Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbvii 39. Hon. Earl B. Taylor District Attorney 27th Judicial District Parish of St. Landry 40. Hon. Joseph L. Waitz, Jr. District Attorney 32nd Judicial District Parish of Terrebonne 41. Hon. J. Reed Walters District Attorney 28th Judicial District Parish of LaSalle 42. Hon. Richard J. Ward, Jr. District Attorney 18th Judicial District Parishes of Iberville, Pointe Coupee and West Baton Rouge II. Counsel: A. Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants 1. Goins Aaron, P.L.C. 2. William D. Aaron, Jr. 3. Richard A. Goins 4. DeWayne L. Williams 5. Scott C. Stevens 6. Candice M. Richards-Forest B. Counsel for Amicus Curiae Louisiana District Attorneys Association 39. Hon. Earl B. Taylor District Attorney 27th Judicial District Parish of St. Landry 40. Hon. Joseph L. Waitz, Jr. District Attorney 32nd Judicial District Parish of Terrebonne 41. Hon. J. Reed Walters District Attorney 28th Judicial District Parish of LaSalle 42. Hon. Richard J. Ward, Jr. District Attorney 18th Judicial District Parishes of Iberville, Pointe Coupee and West Baton Rouge II. Counsel: A. Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants 1. Goins Aaron, P.L.C. 2. William D. Aaron, Jr. 3. Richard A. Goins 4. DeWayne L. Williams 5. Scott C. Stevens 6. Candice M. Richards-Forest B. Counsel for Amicus Curiae Louisiana District Attorneys Association Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbviii 1. Porteous, Hainkel and Johnson, L.L.P. 2. Ralph R. Alexis, III 3. E. Pete Adams, Executive Director, LDAA C. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee 1. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P. 2. Michael L. Banks 3. J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. 4. Amanda M. Bruno 5. Patricia S. Kim 6. S. Gerald Litvin 7. Robert S. Glass 8. Nicholas J. Trenticosta /S/RALPH R. ALEXIS, III 1. Porteous, Hainkel and Johnson, L.L.P. 2. Ralph R. Alexis, III 3. E. Pete Adams, Executive Director, LDAA C. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee 1. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P. 2. Michael L. Banks 3. J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. 4. Amanda M. Bruno 5. Patricia S. Kim 6. S. Gerald Litvin 7. Robert S. Glass 8. Nicholas J. Trenticosta /S/RALPH R. ALEXIS, III Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbix REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Oral argument has been granted and Appellants have allotted, subject to Motion before this Court, two minutes of time from their allotted time for argument to the Louisiana District Attorneys Association. An appropriate motion has been filed. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Oral argument has been granted and Appellants have allotted, subject to Motion before this Court, two minutes of time from their allotted time for argument to the Louisiana District Attorneys Association. An appropriate motion has been filed. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbx TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS……...……..……….. i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT………………...…..………... ix TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………..……………… x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………..……….. xii STATEMENT OF IDENTITY OF AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE………………………………………...……………..…….. A. Identity and Authority………………...………..………. B. Interest of the LDAA…………………………………… 111 ARGUMENT……………………………………………………….... I. BACKGROUND…………………………….………………... II. THE DECISION IN VAN de CAMP v. GOLDSTEIN ELIMINATES THE BASIS OF LIABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE……………………………………………… III. GOLDSTEIN HOLDS THAT ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND TRAIN, HOWEVER PLEAD, DO NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM AGAINST DISTRICT ATTORNEYS…………………………………………………. A. Discussion of Facts and Holding ofGoldstein…………. B. Discussion of Application of Goldstein to Monell Cases Such As The Instant Case………………………………. (1) The Public Trust Would Suffer Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case…………………………………. 2223366 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS……...……..……….. i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT………………...…..………... ix TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………..……………… x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………..……….. xii STATEMENT OF IDENTITY OF AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ………………………………………...……………..…….. 1 A. Identity and Authority………………...………..………. 1 B. Interest of the LDAA…………………………………… 1 ARGUMENT………………………………………………………... 2 I. BACKGROUND…………………………….………………... 2 II. THE DECISION IN VAN de CAMP v. GOLDSTEIN ELIMINATES THE BASIS OF LIABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE……………………………………………… 2 III. GOLDSTEIN HOLDS THAT ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND TRAIN, HOWEVER PLEAD, DO NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM AGAINST DISTRICT ATTORNEYS…………………………………………………. 3 A. Discussion of Facts and Holding of Goldstein…………. 3 B. Discussion of Application of Goldstein to Monell Cases Such As The Instant Case………………………………. 6 (1) The Public Trust Would Suffer Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case…………………………………. 6 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbxi (2) Unique and Intolerable Burdens Will Be Placed Upon Prosecutors Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable toMonell Claims Such As The Instant Case……………………………………………… (3) The Threat of Damages Liability Would Affect The Way in Which Prosecutors Carry Out Their Basic Court-Related Tasks Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case……………………………………… CONCLUSION……………………………………………………… 779 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE……………………...………… CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………….……………... 11 12 (2) Unique and Intolerable Burdens Will Be Placed Upon Prosecutors Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case……………………………………………… 7 (3) The Threat of Damages Liability Would Affect The Way in Which Prosecutors Carry Out Their Basic Court-Related Tasks Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case……………………………………… 7 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………… 9 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE……………………...………… 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………….……………... 12 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbxii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 215 (1963). Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 1999)………. 1, 21 Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 826, 124 S.Ct. 181 (2003)……………………………………………... Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972)………………………… Goldstein v. Long Beach, 481 F. 3d 1170, 1171–1172 (CA9 2007)….. 14 3, 4 Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)………………………………………………………………….. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed 2d 471 (1997)... Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.2d 611 (1978)………………………………. Thompson v. Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008)…………………. Van de Kamp, et al. v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. ______, 129 S.Ct. 855, 2009WL 160430 (2009)………………………………………………. 8 passim1 passim TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 215 (1963). 1,2 Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 1999)………. 1 Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 826,124 S.Ct. 181 (2003)……………………………………………... 1 Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972)………………………… 4 Goldstein v. Long Beach, 481 F. 3d 1170, 1171-1172 (CA9 2007)….. 3,4 Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)………………………………………………………………….. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed 2d 471 (1997)... 8 Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.2d 611 (1978)………………………………. passim Thompson v. Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008)…………………. 1 Van de Kamp, et al. v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. ______, 129 S.Ct. 855, 2009 WL 160430 (2009)………………………………………………. passim Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cbxiii STATUTES, RULES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES FEDERAL STATUTES PAGE 42 U.S.C. 1983………………………………………………………... 3, 6, 7, 8 STATUTES, RULES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES FEDERAL STATUTES PAGE 42 U.S.C. 1983………………………………………………………... 3,6,7,8 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-1 -STATEMENT OF IDENTITY OF AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE A. Identity and Authority The Louisiana District Attorneys Association (“LDAA”) is a Louisiana non-profit corporation which includes as members all of the 42 district attorneys of the State of Louisiana. The District Attorney of the City of New Orleans is a member, and has requested that the LDAA file an Amicus Curiae brief in these proceedings to support his position on rehearing en banc. The membership of the LDAA thereafter authorized the filing of this brief. B. Interest of the LDAA The LDAA has a keen interest in all aspects of law pertaining to Louisiana District Attorneys, including the application of Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.2d 611 (1978),1 which was the underlying source of the judgment appealed from by appellant district attorneys and the underlying basis for the decision of the panel which rendered the decision which is the subject of this rehearing. Thompson v. Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008). The application of Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 1999) and Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 826, 124 S.Ct. 181 (2003) are also of concern to Louisiana district attorneys. In addition, the impact of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L. 1This case is hereinafter referred to as Monell. STATEMENT OF IDENTITY OF AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE A. Identity and Authority The Louisiana District Attorneys Association (“LDAA”) is a Louisiana non-profit corporation which includes as members all of the 42 district attorneys of the State of Louisiana. The District Attorney of the City of New Orleans is a member, and has requested that the LDAA file an Amicus Curiae brief in these proceedings to support his position on rehearing en banc. The membership of the LDAA thereafter authorized the filing of this brief. B. Interest of the LDAA The LDAA has a keen interest in all aspects of law pertaining to Louisiana District Attorneys, including the application of Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.2d 611 (1978),1 which was the underlying source of the judgment appealed from by appellant district attorneys and the underlying basis for the decision of the panel which rendered the decision which is the subject of this rehearing. Thompson v. Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008). The application of Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 1999) and Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 826, 124 S.Ct. 181 (2003) are also of concern to Louisiana district attorneys. In addition, the impact of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L. 1 This case is hereinafter referred to as Monell. 1 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-2 -Ed. 215 (1963), which forms the underlying basis for Monell liability in this case, is also of great concern to the LDAA. Finally, as more fully set forth in this brief, the application of the United States Supreme Court decision in Van de Kamp, et al. v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. ______, 129 S.Ct. 855, 2009 WL 160430 (2009)2 is of primary and urgent concern to Louisiana district attorneys as it applies to the instant case and all other cases involving allegations of a district attorney’s alleged failure to train and/or supervise his assistants. The LDAA also has an interest in all public policy as it applies to Louisiana district attorneys. ARGUMENT I. BACKGROUND Amicus Curiae adopts the statement of background as set forth in the briefs of appellants. II. THE DECISION IN VAN de CAMP v. GOLDSTEIN ELIMINATES THE BASIS OF LIABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE On January 26, 2009, the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously rendered its decision in Goldstein. The Goldstein decision succinctly states the facts at issue in that case, and they are repeated here to give proper context: In 1998, respondent Thomas Goldstein (then a prisoner) filed a habeas corpus action in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. He claimed that in 1980 he was convicted of 2This decision is hereinafter referred to as “Goldstein.” Ed. 215 (1963), which forms the underlying basis for Monell liability in this case, is also of great concern to the LDAA. Finally, as more fully set forth in this brief, the application of the United States Supreme Court decision in Van de Kamp, et al. v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. ______, 129 S.Ct. 855, 2009 WL 160430 (2009)2 is of primary and urgent concern to Louisiana district attorneys as it applies to the instant case and all other cases involving allegations of a district attorney’s alleged failure to train and/or supervise his assistants. The LDAA also has an interest in all public policy as it applies to Louisiana district attorneys. ARGUMENT I. BACKGROUND Amicus Curiae adopts the statement of background as set forth in the briefs of appellants. II. THE DECISION IN VAN de CAMP v. GOLDSTEIN ELIMINATES THE BASIS OF LIABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE On January 26, 2009, the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously rendered its decision in Goldstein. The Goldstein decision succinctly states the facts at issue in that case, and they are repeated here to give proper context: In 1998, respondent Thomas Goldstein (then a prisoner) filed a habeas corpus action in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. He claimed that in 1980 he was convicted of 2 This decision is hereinafter referred to as “Goldstein .” 2 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-3 -murder; that his conviction depended in critical part upon the testimony of Edward Floyd Fink, a jailhouse informant; that Fink’s testimony was unreliable, indeed false; that Fink had previously received reduced sentences for providing prosecutors with favorable testimony in other cases; that at least some prosecutors in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office knew about the favorable treatment; that the office had not provided Goldstein’s attorney with that information; and that, among other things, the prosecution’s failure to provide Goldstein’s attorney with this potential impeachment information had led to his erroneous conviction. Goldstein v. Long Beach, 481 F. 3d 1170, 1171–1172 (CA9 2007). After an evidentiary hearing the District Court agreed with Goldstein that Fink had not been truthful and that if the prosecution had told Goldstein’s lawyer that Fink had received prior rewards in return for favorable testimony it might have made a difference. The court ordered the State either to grant Goldstein a new trial or to release him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s determination. And the State decided that, rather than retry Goldstein (who had already served 24 years of his sentence), it would release him. App. 54–55, 59–60 Van de Kamp, et al. v. Goldstein, 129 S. Ct. at 859. The Supreme Court’s holding in Goldstein prohibits Monell claims against district attorneys alleging failure to train or supervise assistants arising out of alleged constitutional violations occurring during a prosecution. Thus, it is respectfully urged that Goldstein mandates the reversal of the panel’s decision. III. GOLDSTEIN HOLDS THAT ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND TRAIN, HOWEVER PLED, DO NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM AGAINST DISTRICT ATTORNEYS A. Discussion of Facts and Holding of Goldstein After his release from prison, Goldstein filed a §1983 action against the murder; that his conviction depended in critical part upon the testimony of Edward Floyd Fink, a jailhouse informant; that Fink’s testimony was unreliable, indeed false; that Fink had previously received reduced sentences for providing prosecutors with favorable testimony in other cases; that at least some prosecutors in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office knew about the favorable treatment; that the office had not provided Goldstein’s attorney with that information; and that, among other things, the prosecution’s failure to provide Goldstein’s attorney with this potential impeachment information had led to his erroneous conviction. Goldstein v. Long Beach , 481 F. 3d 1170, 1171-1172 (CA9 2007). After an evidentiary hearing the District Court agreed with Goldstein that Fink had not been truthful and that if the prosecution had told Goldstein’s lawyer that Fink had received prior rewards in return for favorable testimony it might have made a difference. The court ordered the State either to grant Goldstein a new trial or to release him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s determination. And the State decided that, rather than retry Goldstein (who had already served 24 years of his sentence), it would release him. App. 54-55, 59-60 Van de Kamp, et al. v. Goldstein, 129 S. Ct. at 859. The Supreme Court’s holding in Goldstein prohibits Monell claims against district attorneys alleging failure to train or supervise assistants arising out of alleged constitutional violations occurring during a prosecution. Thus, it is respectfully urged that Goldstein mandates the reversal of the panel’s decision. III. GOLDSTEIN HOLDS THAT ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND TRAIN, HOWEVER PLED, DO NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM AGAINST DISTRICT ATTORNEYS A. Discussion of Facts and Holding of Goldstein After his release from prison, Goldstein filed a §1983 action against the 3 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-4 -former Los Angeles County district attorney and chief deputy district attorney. The Supreme Court framed the question presented thusly: We ask whether that immunity3 extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material, see Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to all these claims. Id., at 858. Goldstein asserted claims that the district attorney and his chief assistant violated their constitutional obligation to provide his attorney with impeachmentrelated information because they failed “to adequately train and supervise deputy district attorneys on that subject.” Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 481 S.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007). This argument was based upon the allegation that the DAs “failed to create any system for the Deputy District Attorney’s handling criminal cases to access information pertaining to the benefits provided to jailhouse informants and other impeachment information.” 129 S.Ct. at 856. The Supreme Court concluded … that prosecutors involved in such supervision or training or information-system management enjoy absolute immunity from the kind of legal claims at issue here. Those claims focus upon a certain kind of administrative obligation—a kind that itself is directly connected with the conduct of a trial. Here, unlike with other claims related to administrative decisions, an individual prosecutor’s error 3 Referring to the Court’s decision in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) determining that a prosecutor has absolute immunity “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” 96 S.Ct. at 995. former Los Angeles County district attorney and chief deputy district attorney. The Supreme Court framed the question presented thusly: We ask whether that immunity3 extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material, see Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to all these claims. Id., at 858. Goldstein asserted claims that the district attorney and his chief assistant violated their constitutional obligation to provide his attorney with impeachmentrelated information because they failed “to adequately train and supervise deputy district attorneys on that subject.” Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 481 S.3d 1170,1176 (9th Cir. 2007). This argument was based upon the allegation that the DAs “failed to create any system for the Deputy District Attorney’s handling criminal cases to access information pertaining to the benefits provided to jailhouse informants and other impeachment information.” 129 S.Ct. at 856. The Supreme Court concluded … that prosecutors involved in such supervision or training or information-system management enjoy absolute immunity from the kind of legal claims at issue here. Those claims focus upon a certain kind of administrative obligation—a kind that itself is directly connected with the conduct of a trial. Here, unlike with other claims related to administrative decisions, an individual prosecutor’s error 3 Referring to the Court’s decision in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) determining that a prosecutor has absolute immunity “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” 96 S.Ct. at 995. 4 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-5 -in the plaintiff’s specific criminal trial constitutes an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim. … Moreover, the types of activities on which Goldstein’s claims focus necessarily require legal knowledge and the exercise of related discretion, e.g., in determining what information should be included in the training or the supervision or the information-system management. And in that sense also Goldstein’s claims are unlike claims of, say, unlawful discrimination in hiring employees. Given these features of the case before us, we believe absolute immunity must follow (emphasis supplied).4 The Court then dramatically re-affirmed Imbler and delivered what is a “knock-out punch” for suits such as the instant one: … because better training or supervision might prevent most, if not all, prosecutorial errors at trial, permission to bring such a suit here would grant permission to criminal defendants to bring claims in other similar instances, in effect claiming damages for (trial-related) training or supervisory failings. Cf. Imbler, supra. Further, given the complexity of the constitutional issues, inadequate training and supervision suits could, as in Imbler, “pose substantial danger of liability even to the honest prosecutor.” Id., at 425. Finally, as Imbler pointed out, defending prosecutorial decisions, often years after they were made, could impose “unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials.” Id., at 425–426 (emphasis supplied).5 The Court continued: … Most important, the ease with which a plaintiff could restyle a complaint charging a trial failure so that it becomes a complaint charging a failure of training or supervision would eviscerate Imbler (emphasis supplied).6 4129 S.Ct. at 861-862. 5 Id., at 863. 6 Id., at 863 in the plaintiff’s specific criminal trial constitutes an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim. … Moreover, the types of activities on which Goldstein’s claims focus necessarily require legal knowledge and the exercise of related discretion, e.g., in determining what information should be included in the training or the supervision or the information-system management. And in that sense also Goldstein’s claims are unlike claims of, say, unlawful discrimination in hiring employees. Given these features of the case before us, we believe absolute immunity must follow (emphasis supplied).4 The Court then dramatically re-affirmed Imbler and delivered what is a “knock-out punch” for suits such as the instant one: … because better training or supervision might prevent most, if not all, prosecutorial errors at trial, permission to bring such a suit here would grant permission to criminal defendants to bring claims in other similar instances, in effect claiming damages for (trial-related) training or supervisory failings. Cf. Imbler, supra. Further, given the complexity of the constitutional issues, inadequate training and supervision suits could, as in Imbler, “pose substantial danger of liability even to the honest prosecutor.” Id., at 425. Finally, as Imbler pointed out, defending prosecutorial decisions, often years after they were made, could impose “unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials.” Id., at 425-426 (emphasis supplied).5 The Court continued: … Most important, the ease with which a plaintiff could restyle a complaint charging a trial failure so that it becomes a complaint charging a failure of training or supervision would eviscerate Imbler (emphasis supplied).6 4129 S.Ct. at 58 6I1d.-,8 a6t2. 866 I3d.., at 863 5 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-6 -B. Discussion of Application of Goldstein to Monell Cases Such As The Instant Case The instant case involves “artful pleading,” under the guise of Monell, of a §1983 claim based on alleged failure to train or supervise. This is the type of claim that the Supreme Court in Goldstein so adamantly rejected. Although Goldstein admittedly did not address a Monell claim, its holding is no less applicable to cases such as the instant one. Why would the Supreme Court so vigorously establish a prosecutor’s absolute immunity in his personal capacity for alleged constitutional violations committed by him/her while acting as advocate for the state, yet be presumed to sanction “artful pleading” around Imbler pursuant to Monell to establish liability for the same thing? Goldstein confirms that the Court does not sanction such artful pleading. It is submitted that Goldstein holds that district attorneys cannot be held civilly liable for their alleged failures to train or supervise assistants where the alleged constitutional violations committed by assistants occur “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” The following analysis of the rationale behind that decision demonstrates our contention: (1) The Public Trust Would Suffer Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case In Goldstein, the Court reiterated Imbler’s rationale that The “public trust of the prosecutor’s office would suffer” were the B. Discussion of Application of Goldstein to Monell Cases Such As The Instant Case The instant case involves “artful pleading,” under the guise of Monell, of a §1983 claim based on alleged failure to train or supervise. This is the type of claim that the Supreme Court in Goldstein so adamantly rejected. Although Goldstein admittedly did not address a Monell claim, its holding is no less applicable to cases such as the instant one. Why would the Supreme Court so vigorously establish a prosecutor’s absolute immunity in his personal capacity for alleged constitutional violations committed by him/her while acting as advocate for the state, yet be presumed to sanction “artful pleading” around Imbler pursuant to Monell to establish liability for the same thing? Goldstein confirms that the Court does not sanction such artful pleading. It is submitted that Goldstein holds that district attorneys cannot be held civilly liable for their alleged failures to train or supervise assistants where the alleged constitutional violations committed by assistants occur “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” The following analysis of the rationale behind that decision demonstrates our contention: (1) The Public Trust Would Suffer Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case In Goldstein, the Court reiterated Imbler’s rationale that The “public trust of the prosecutor’s office would suffer” were the 6 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-7 -prosecutor to have in mind his “own potential” damages “liability” when making prosecutorial decisions—as he might well were he subject to §1983 liability … (emphasis supplied).7 Is that rationale not applicable in our instant matter where a substantial judgment against the District Attorney of Orleans Parish in his official capacity might ultimately shut down the District Attorney’s office? (2) Unique and Intolerable Burdens Will Be Placed Upon Prosecutors Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case In Goldstein, the Court further relied on Imbler’s rationale that … fair-trial questions “often would require a virtual retrial of the criminal offense in a new forum, and the resolution of some technical issues by the lay jury”). A “prosecutor,” … “inevitably makes many decisions that could engender colorable claims of constitutional deprivation. Defending these decisions, often years after they were made, could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials.”… Emphasis supplied.8 The instant case involves exactly these circumstances. (3) The Threat of Damages Liability Would Affect The Way in Which Prosecutors Carry Out Their Basic Court-Related Tasks Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case In Goldstein the Court further stated in support of its holding: Decisions about indictment or trial prosecution will often involve more than one prosecutor within an office. We do not see how such differences in the pattern of liability among a group of prosecutors in 7 129 S.Ct. at 860. 8 Id. prosecutor to have in mind his “own potential” damages “liability” when making prosecutorial decisions—as he might well were he subject to §1983 liability … (emphasis supplied).7 Is that rationale not applicable in our instant matter where a substantial judgment against the District Attorney of Orleans Parish in his official capacity might ultimately shut down the District Attorney’s office? (2) Unique and Intolerable Burdens Will Be Placed Upon Prosecutors Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case In Goldstein, the Court further relied on Imbler’s rationale that … fair-trial questions “often would require a virtual retrial of the criminal offense in a new forum, and the resolution of some technical issues by the lay jury”). A “prosecutor,” … “inevitably makes many decisions that could engender colorable claims of constitutional deprivation. Defending these decisions, often years after they were made, could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials.” … Emphasis supplied.8 The instant case involves exactly these circumstances. (3) The Threat of Damages Liability Would Affect The Way in Which Prosecutors Carry Out Their Basic Court-Related Tasks Unless Goldstein is Made Applicable to Monell Claims Such As The Instant Case In Goldstein the Court further stated in support of its holding: Decisions about indictment or trial prosecution will often involve more than one prosecutor within an office. We do not see how such differences in the pattern of liability among a group of prosecutors in 7129 S.Ct. at 860. 8Id. 7 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-8 -a single office could alleviate Imbler’s basic fear, namely, that the threat of damages liability would affect the way in which prosecutors carried out their basic court-related tasks. Moreover, this Court has pointed out that “it is the interest in protecting the proper functioning of the office, rather than the interest in protecting its occupant, that is of primary importance.” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U. S. 118, 125 (1997). Emphasis supplied.9 Does not this rationale apply in the instant case? Here there is a judgment against the District Attorney in his official capacity in an amount exceeding $15 million. If the Supreme Court has established society’s overriding interest in “protecting the proper functioning of the [District Attorneys] office,” can it be reasonably argued that Monell provides an artful way to skirt Imbler and potentially obtain a judgment against a District Attorney’s office that would cause the office to cease operating or otherwise cause serious financial and servicerelated repercussions to that office? After Goldstein, the answers to these questions are obvious. After Goldstein, it is certain that the Supreme Court will not allow district attorneys to be “intolerably burdened” through artful pleading, i.e. through Monell. After Goldstein, it is clear that Imbler means what it says: No civil suits whatsoever are recognizable against prosecutors under § 1983, however artfully pleaded, based on actions taken by prosecutors “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” 9129 S.Ct. at 862. a single office could alleviate Imbler’s basic fear, namely, that the threat of damages liability would affect the way in which prosecutors carried out their basic court-related tasks. Moreover, this Court has pointed out that “it is the interest in protecting the proper functioning of the office, rather than the interest in protecting its occupant, that is of primary importance.” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U. S. 118, 125 (1997). Emphasis supplied.9 Does not this rationale apply in the instant case? Here there is a judgment against the District Attorney in his official capacity in an amount exceeding $15 million. If the Supreme Court has established society’s overriding interest in “protecting the proper functioning of the [District Attorneys] office,” can it be reasonably argued that Monell provides an artful way to skirt Imbler and potentially obtain a judgment against a District Attorney’s office that would cause the office to cease operating or otherwise cause serious financial and servicerelated repercussions to that office? After Goldstein, the answers to these questions are obvious. After Goldstein, it is certain that the Supreme Court will not allow district attorneys to be “intolerably burdened” through artful pleading, i.e. through Monell. After Goldstein, it is clear that Imbler means what it says: No civil suits whatsoever are recognizable against prosecutors under § 1983, however artfully pleaded, based on actions taken by prosecutors “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” 9129 S.Ct. at 862. 8 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-9 -V. CONCLUSION We conclude with a compelling statement by the Supreme Court in Goldstein: … Immunity does not exist to help prosecutors in the easy case; it exists because the easy cases bring difficult cases in their wake. And, as Imbler pointed out, the likely presence of too many difficult cases threatens, not prosecutors, but the public, for the reason that it threatens to undermine the necessary independence and integrity of the prosecutorial decision making process. 129 S.Ct. at 864. It is respectfully submitted that Goldstein holds that no suit, however artfully pled, may be brought under Monell or otherwise asserting liability of a district attorney based upon an alleged failure to train or supervise an assistant district attorney for actions taken while acting as an advocate for the State. For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully urged that this Honorable Court sitting en banc reverse the judgment of and vacate the jury verdict rendered in the District Court. Respectfully submitted, /S/RALPH R. ALEXIS, III (#02379) Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, LLP 704 Carondelet Street New Orleans, LA 70130-3774 Phone: 504-581-3838 Facsimile: 504-581-4069 E-mail: ralexis@phjlaw.com Attorneys for Louisiana District Attorneys Association V. CONCLUSION We conclude with a compelling statement by the Supreme Court in Goldstein: … Immunity does not exist to help prosecutors in the easy case; it exists because the easy cases bring difficult cases in their wake. And, as Imbler pointed out, the likely presence of too many difficult cases threatens, not prosecutors, but the public, for the reason that it threatens to undermine the necessary independence and integrity of the prosecutorial decision making process. 129 S.Ct. at 864. It is respectfully submitted that Goldstein holds that no suit, however artfully pled, may be brought under Monell or otherwise asserting liability of a district attorney based upon an alleged failure to train or supervise an assistant district attorney for actions taken while acting as an advocate for the State. For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully urged that this Honorable Court sitting en banc reverse the judgment of and vacate the jury verdict rendered in the District Court. Respectfully submitted, /S/RALPH R. ALEXIS, III (#02379) Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, LLP 704 Carondelet Street New Orleans, LA 70130-3774 Phone: 504-581-3838 Facsimile: 504-581-4069 E-mail: ralexis@phjlaw.com Attorneys for Louisiana District Attorneys Association 9 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-10 -E. PETE ADAMS, (LA Bar #2415) Executive Director LA District Attorneys Association 1645 Nicholson Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70802-8143 Telephone: (225) 343-0171 Facsimile: (225) 387-0237 E. PETE ADAMS, (LA Bar #2415) Executive Director LA District Attorneys Association 1645 Nicholson Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70802-8143 Telephone: (225) 343-0171 Facsimile: (225) 387-0237 10 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-11 -CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 1. This Brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because this Brief contains 2,224 words, excluding parts of the Brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). 2. This Brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(1)(6). /S/RALPH R. ALEXIS, III CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 1. This Brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because this Brief contains 2,224 words, excluding parts of the Brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). 2. This Brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(1)(6). /S/RALPH R. ALEXIS, III 11 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb-12 -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing, and an electronic diskette of the same, has been served this 15th day of April, 2009, via the United States mail, property addressed and postage prepaid, on all counsel of record as follows: J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. Michael L. Banks S. Gerald Litvin Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Carol Anne Kolinchak Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana 1340 Poydras Street, Suite 1700 New Orleans, LA 70112 Robert S. Glass Glass & Reed 530 Natchez Street New Orleans, LA 70130 William D. Aaron Richard A. Goins DeWayne L. Williams Scott C. Stevens Candice M. Richards-Forest Goins Aaron, APLC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3800 New Orleans, LA 70170 /S/RALPH R. ALEXIS, III CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing, and an electronic diskette of the same, has been served this 15th day of April, 2009, via the United States mail, property addressed and postage prepaid, on all counsel of record as follows: J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. Carol Anne Kolinchak Michael L. Banks Capital Post-Conviction Project of S. Gerald Litvin Louisiana Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1340 Poydras Street, Suite 1700 1701 Market Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Robert S. Glass William D. Aaron Glass & Reed Richard A. Goins 530 Natchez Street DeWayne L. Williams New Orleans, LA 70130 Scott C. Stevens Candice M. Richards-Forest Goins Aaron, APLC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3800 New Orleans, LA 70170 /S/RALPH R. ALEXIS, III 12 -Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b51aa865-bc46-4bd9-a6a6-f714b93793cb