Court Opinion

ID: 9960894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 15:09:08.324146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:59.385127
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                              STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                COURT OF APPEAL

                                  FIRST CIRCUIT

                                   2023 CA 1201

         KELVIN WELLS, IN THE INTEREST OF PATRICK WELLS

                                     VERSUS

    MICHAEL X., MAGNOLIA WOODS SCHOOL, DONNA WALLETTE

                               DATE OF JUDGMENT.-          APR 17 2024

                PEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
                kRISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA
                             NUMBER 611493, SECTION 24

                        HONORABLE DONALD JOHNSON, JUDGE

V

    Kelvin Wells, Sr.                        Plaintiff -.
                                                       Appellant
    St. Gabriel, Louisiana                   Pro Se

    Jonathan D. Blake                        Counsel for Defendants -Appellees
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana                   Michael X, Magnolia Woods School
                                             and Donna Wallette

                  BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LAMER, JJ.

    Disposition: MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED. AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, J.

       Plaintiff-appellant, Kelvin Wells, on behalf of his minor child Patrick Wells,

appeals the trial court' s dismissal on the grounds of abandonment of his claims

against defendants, Michael X, Ann Hollinger, Donna Wallette, Leon Halford, and

Lt. Malcolm Hall, pursuant to an ex parte order filed by the East Baton Rouge

Parish School System (EBRPSS). We amend and, as amended, affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       Wells filed this Iawsuit in proper person on May 29, 2012, averring that

Patrick, a student at Magnolia Woods Elementary School, had been the victim of

violence at the hands of other students, apparently including a student identified as

Michael X. Wells also named as defendants, Hollinger, who was allegedly present

in the classroom during acts of violence, and `' Nanette in her individual capacity as

well as her official capacity as principal ofMagnolia Woods Elementary School. In

amendments to his petition, Wells added Lt. Hall, averring that he failed to

properly investigate Wells' complaints, and Halford " believed to be employed at

Magnolia Woods Elementary School" for allegedly " striking minor children ...

and concealing attacks,      bullying, and injuries" of students at the elementary

school.'   Wells filed a petition for a restraining order on August 21,                2013,

requesting the closure of Magnolia Woods Elementary School and protective

orders against school representatives, including Halford and. Wallette, based on

allegations of liability due to continued acts of violence on children attending the

school. On April 11, 2014, Wells filed into the record interrogatories propounded

on various individuals, none of which were named defendants in this lawsuit.

       On October 30, 2017, Wells filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,

directing that the Clerk of Court for the Nineteenth Judicial District Court and the

I Wells also named Todd Hernandez in his capacity as a district court judge for failing to
properly perform his judicial duties. On November 14, 2013, the trial court signed a judgment,
sustaining Judge Hernandez' s peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action
based on judicial immunity and dismissing Wells' claims against him.
                                              0
judges in the " sections where said motions and [ subpoena]                 request,   deposition

request"   were   filed   issue   an   order       ostensibly   requiring    that   unidentified

respondents comply with discovery. Wells attached to his pleading extensive

documentary evidence but did not include a service request.

      On January 11, 2023, EBRPSS filed an ex parte motion to dismiss Wells'

lawsuit on the grounds of abandonment. The trial court signed the order on January

11, 2023, granting the motion and dismissing Wells' lawsuit with prejudice. Wells

filed an opposition to abandonment, contending that defendants failed to engage in

the discovery process. Although he entitled his pleading " PLAINTIFFS [ sic]

OPPOSITION        TO      ABANDONMENT                 REQUEST        FOR       SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE,"        he neither prayed for a conference nor attached an order

requesting either a scheduling conference or a contradictory hearing, seeking to set

aside the dismissal of his lawsuit. On January 19, 2023, Wells filed a request for an

appeal of the dismissal, which the trial court granted, signing the order that Wells

included with his pleading.

                          MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

      On January 30, 2024, during the pendency of this appeal, EBRPSS filed a

motion to dismiss Wells' appeal with prejudice, maintaining that it was untimely

filed with this court and that the Wells' brief actually appealed lawsuit #597, 165 of

the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.

      We find no merit in EBRPSS' s assertion that Wells'               brief was untimely.

Wells was advised by this court to file his appellant brief by December 22, 2023,

and he did. As to EBRPSS' s claim that Wells did not appeal lawsuit #611, 493 of

the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, it is evident from our review of the appeal

record that he did so, having listed lawsuit # 611, 493 in his motion for an appeal.

To the extent that the EBRPSS contends that the inclusion of lawsuit # 597, 165 on

                                               3
the cover of Wells' brief demonstrated an intent to lodge an appeal in a different

matter, we disagree.

       Although Wells'        brief fails to comply with La. U.R.C.A. Rule 2- 12. 4 in

numerous manners, in the interest ofjustice, we read pro se filings indulgently and

attempt to construe briefs as though assignments of error were properly raised. See

Brown v. Terrehonne Par. Sheriffs Office, 2017- 1305 ( La.                      App. I st Cir.

4113118),   249 So. 3d 864, 869 n. 7,         writ   not   considered   sub   nam.   Brown v.

Larpenter, 2018.00964 ( La. 1018118), 253 So.3d 792. In brief, Wells recognizes

lawsuit # 597, 165 as a lawsuit separate from that which he appealed.' Accordingly,

we decline to grant EBRPSS' s motion to dismiss and deny the requested relief.

                                        DISCUSSION

       La. C. C.P.     art.   561   governs the abandonment of cases, providing, in

pertinent part.

       A. (1) An action ...     is abandoned when the parties fail to take any step
       in its prosecution or defense in the trial court for a period of three
       years....

        3) This provision shall be operative without formal order, but, on ex
       parte motion of any party or other interested person by affidavit which
       provides that no step has been timely taken in the prosecution or
       defense of the action, the trial court shall enter a formal order of
       dismissal as of the date of its abandonment....

        4) A motion to set aside a dismissal may be made only within thirty
       days of the date of the sheriffs service of the order of dismissal. If the
       trial court denies a timely motion to set aside the dismissal, the clerk
       of court shall give notice of the order of denial pursuant to Article
       1913( A) and shall file a certificate pursuant to Article 1913( D).
       This article has been construed as imposing three requirements on a plaintiff.

First, the plaintiff must take a " step" toward prosecution of his lawsuit. A "step" is

defined as taking formal action before the court that is intended to hasten the

lawsuit toward judgment. Second, the step must be taken in the proceeding and,

z Wells maintains that the appealed lawsuit was consolidated with lawsuits # 597, 165, # 675, 530,
and # 719,275.   And while the record does not include a consolidation order, we recognize that
Wells expressly distinguishes the appealed lawsuit from lawsuit #597, 165, which is the lawsuit
that EBRPSS contends he appealed.

                                                4
with the exception of formal discovery, must appear in the record of the lawsuit.

Third, the step must be taken within the three-year period prescribed by Article

561. McNealy v. Englade, 2019- 0573 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 2/21/ 20), 298 So.3d 182,

      The underlying policy of the abandonment article seeks to prevent protracted

litigation that is fled for purposes of harassment or without a serious intent to

hasten the claim to judgment. Abandonment is not a punitive measure but is

designed to discourage frivolous lawsuits by preventing plaintiffs from allowing

them to linger indefinitely. When the parties take no steps in the prosecution or

defense of their claims during the period set forth in Article 561, the logical

inference is that the party intends to abandon the claim and the law gives effect to

this inference. Id.

      Because dismissal is the harshest of punishments, the law favors and justice

requires that an action be maintained whenever possible so that the aggrieved party

has his day in court. Thus, if the plaintiff has clearly demonstrated before the court

during the prescribed period that he does not intend to abandon his lawsuit,

dismissal is not warranted. Id.

       Abandonment is self-executing; it occurs automatically upon the passing of

three years without a step being taken by either party and is effective without court

order. Once abandonment has occurred, action by the plaintiff cannot breathe new

life into the lawsuit. Id.

       Whether a step in the prosecution or defense of a case was taken in the trial

court within a period of three years is a question of fact subject to a manifest error

review on appeal. On the other hand, whether a particular act, if proven, qualifies

as a step toward furtherance of the action and thereby precludes abandonment is a

question of law that we review by simply determining whether the trial court' s

                                          5
interpretative decision is correct. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Louis, 2020-

0717 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. S113/ 21), 326 So. 3d 904, 909.

       Because Wells did not file a motion to set aside the dismissal, no evidence

was offered to support his contention of having taken steps toward prosecution of

his lawsuit. Thus, our review is limited to the appeal record. See Hancock Bank of
Louisiana v. Robinson, 2020- 0791 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3111121),                322 So.3d 307,

312.

       Our review of the record shows the last step toward prosecution of his claim

was Wells' petition for mandamus filed on October 30, 2017. Although Wells

suggests that a pretrial order, subpoenas, and letters to the court ( wherein he avers

that he warned of a sexual predator who had attacked Patrick)                     were   actions

sufficient to prevent abandonment, we find none of these items were filed into the

record before us in this appeal after the October 30, 2017 pleading.' Thus, without

determining whether such actions constitute steps in Wells' prosecution of his

lawsuit, we hold that the record before us shows only that Wells' abandoned his

lawsuit.

       In support of its ex parte motion to dismiss, EBRPSS submitted an affidavit

providing that no step has been timely taken in the prosecution or defense of the

action. In the affidavit, counsel for EBRPSS attested that the last step toward the

prosecution of Wells' lawsuit occurred on May 8, 2018, when counsel for Halford

and Lt. Hall filed a notice of deposition, scheduling depositions for Patrick and his

two sisters for June 1, 2018.

       As an initial matter, we note that although EBRPSS is not a named

defendant in Wells'        lawsuit, we find no         error in the trial court' s implicit

determination that EBRPSS is an interested person under Article 561( A)(3)

3 As we have noted the record does not contain an order consolidating this lawsuit with any other
lawsuits. See n.2, supra. hWortantly, any alleged " steps" taken in another ordinary action cannot
serve to interrupt the time period for abandonment under Article 561 in this lawsuit. See BAC
Home Loans Servicing, LP, 326 So.3d at 910.
                                                no
because numerous of its employees were; Wells expressly alleged Wallette is liable                  I

in her official capacity; and he averred that the East Baton Rouge Parish School

Board is liable under the doctrine respondeat superior. Based on EBRPSS' s

affidavit, whether we utilize May 8, 2018, or the later date of June 1, 2018 under a

presumption the scheduled depositions occurred as noticed, the record shows that

by no later than June 1, 2021, Wells' lawsuit was abandoned. Accordingly, we

conclude     the   trial   court   correctly    granted     EBRPSS' s      ex     parte   motion   of

abandonment and dismissed Wells' lawsuit.

       The trial court' s order of dismissal of Wells' lawsuit due to abandonment

was   with   prejudice.     However, a dismissal           of an action on the grounds of

abandonment may only be made without prejudice. Davis v. Naquin, 2023- 0057

La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 15123), 375 So.3d 968, 972. Accordingly, we amend the trial

court' s January 11, 2023 order to dismiss Wells' lawsuit without prejudice.

                                             DECREE

       For these reasons, we deny EBRPSS' s motion to dismiss Wells' appeal. The

trial court' s order, dismissing Wells' lawsuit against all defendants, is amended to

replace the words " with prejudice" to " without prejudice." As amended, the trial

court' s judgment is affirmed. Appeal costs are assessed against plaintiff-appellant,

Kelvin Wells on behalf of his minor child, Patrick Wells.'

       MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED. AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED,
AFFIRMED.

4 Although Wells pursued this appeal in forma pauperis, costs may nevertheless be taxed against
him. See La. C.C. P. art. 5188; Marquez v. Louisiana Dept ofPub. Safety & Corrs., 2023- 0688
 La. App. 1 st Cir. 12127123), --- So. 3d ----, -----, 2023 WL 8906434, at * 2.
                                                   7