Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Steven Anthony WALCOTT, Jr. v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND VALLEY SERVICES, LLC
This appeal arises from the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on a dilatory exception raising the objection of lack of procedural capacity. For the reasons set forth herein, we remand this matter for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 24, 2019, plaintiff, Stephen A. Walcott, Jr., a patient at East Louisiana Mental Hospital, filed a petition (Docket No. 45,949) alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the Louisiana Department of Health; Valley Services, LLC 1 (“Valley Services”); and a number of employees working at East Louisiana Mental Hospital, both in their individual and official capacities.2
Valley Services filed an exception raising the objection of lack of procedural capacity, arguing that Walcott lacked procedural capacity to sue pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 684 because “as reflected by the news article published by houmatoday.com dated May 9, 2018, petitioner has been deemed mentally incompetent and suffers from paranoia and delusions.” The 2018 news article, attached as an exhibit to the memorandum in support of the exception, states that Walcott was examined by mental health experts prior to a criminal trial, and thereafter, Judge Randall Bethancourt “determined the defendant lacked the mental capacity to assist in his defense and did not understand the court proceedings” and “ordered Walcott to be sent to [a psychiatric facility], where he will be treated in an attempt to make him competent.”
On December 23, 2019, Walcott filed another petition (Docket No. 46,028) against the Louisiana Department of Health and a number of employees at East Louisiana Mental Hospital, both in their individual and official capacities, raising additional claims related to excessive force, retaliation, medical indifference, and the forced administration of anti-psychotic medication.3
A hearing was held on February 10, 2020 on Valley Services's exception. Thereafter, the trial court sustained Valley Services's exception of lack of procedural capacity and dismissed Walcott's claim against Valley Services without prejudice.4
Following the dismissal of Walcott's claims against Valley Services, some of the remaining defendants in Docket No. 45,949 filed their own exception raising the objection of lack of procedural capacity, based on Judge Bethancourt's 2018 determination that Walcott lacked the mental capacity to proceed with his criminal trial and the trial court's ruling in this suit on Valley Services's exception of lack of procedural capacity.5 A dilatory exception of lack of procedural capacity was filed by defendants in Docket No. 46,028 as well.6 Their objection was based on Judge Bethancourt's 2018 determination that Walcott lacked the mental capacity to proceed with his criminal trial, Judge Bethancourt's November 2019 order for forced administration of antipsychotic medication to Walcott, and the trial court's ruling in Docket No. 45,949 on Valley Services's exception of lack of procedural capacity.
A single hearing was held on the exceptions of lack of procedural capacity in Docket Nos. 45,949 and 46,028 on September 14, 2020. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of its prior ruling and reasons in Docket No. 45,949,7 as well as the fact that Walcott has been determined to be incompetent to proceed in a criminal matter, and concluded that Walcott lacks procedural capacity to sue. Having so concluded, the trial court sustained both exceptions of lack of procedural capacity and dismissed “both of these matters” without prejudice.
Thereafter, the trial court signed separate, but nearly identical, judgments in Docket Nos. 45,949 and 46,028. Walcott appealed the judgment rendered in Docket No. 45,949 only. On appeal, Walcott assigns the following trial court errors:
1. The district court erred in holding that incompetency to stand trial in a criminal case automatically divests an individual of procedural capacity to bring a civil suit under Louisiana law.
2. The district court erred in dismissing a civil suit based on lack of procedural capacity to sue, instead of appointing an attorney to represent the plaintiff, where the plaintiff was not interdicted and confined to a mental institution.
3. The district court committed constitutional error in dismissing a civil suit based on lack of procedural capacity to sue, instead of appointing an attorney to represent the plaintiff, where no other representative was authorized to initiate suit on the incapacitated individual's behalf.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1918(A) provides that a final judgment “shall be identified as such by appropriate language; shall be signed and dated; and shall, in its decree, identify the name of the party in whose favor the relief is awarded, the name of the party against whom the relief is awarded, and the relief that is awarded.” Article 1918(A) further provides that if a judgment that does not contain the proper decretal language is appealed, it shall be remanded to the trial court for amendment in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 1951.8
The October 2, 2020 judgment before us on appeal (Docket No. 45,949) sustains the exception and dismisses Walcott's claims against the following defendants: Louisiana Department of Health, Simeon Jackson, Latise Chopain, Bobby Parker, Elizabeth Cain, Steve Lea, Janet Johnson, Richard Bethley, Delbert Griffin, Shawn Kelly, Ryan Tolivar, and Lt. Ducet. However, only the Louisiana Department of Health, Steve Lea, Delbert Griffin, and Shawn Kelly are exceptors in Docket No. 45,949. The remaining parties listed in the judgment are either defendants or exceptors in Docket No. 46,028 or defendants (but not exceptors) in Docket No. 45,949. Thus, the judgment before us lacks the appropriate decretal language required for a final appealable judgment as set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 1918(A) and must be remanded to the trial court for amendment in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 1951.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, this matter is remanded to the trial court for amendment of the October 2, 2020 judgment in order to correct the above-noted deficiencies in the decretal language. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $2,616.95 are assessed to defendant-appellee, Louisiana Department of Health.
REMANDED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Valley Services was incorrectly named as “Valley Caterring, an Elior Company” in the petition.
2. The employees named as defendants were identified by their position and, in some cases, by only a first or last name. Although some are identified as “kitchen workers,” it is unclear whether they are employees of Valley Services or East Louisiana Mental Hospital.
3. Although the Louisiana Department of Health was a defendant in both suits, the employees named as defendants in Docket No. 46,028 were not all the same individuals made defendants in Docket No. 45,949.
4. Walcott's appeal of the judgment sustaining the exception of lack of procedural capacity and dismissing his claims against Valley Services is the subject of a separate appeal before this court. See Walcott v. La. Dept. of Health, 2021-0019 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/29/21) 2021 WL 1171179.
5. In addition to the Louisiana Department of Health, the exceptors are: Chaplin Young, Eddie Stanford, Marlon Davis, Shawn Kelly, Michael John, Jr., Jamaca Coleman, Delbert Griffin, Grayland Welch, Paula Bryant, Steve Lea, Annette Arthur, Simone Livas, Beverly Banks Cannon, Richard Bethley, Brenda Williams, and Keisha Hooker. These exceptors also raised the objection of no cause of action or, in the alternative, no right of action. The objection of no cause of action or, in the alternative, no right of action, was not addressed at the hearing on the exceptions and is not before us on appeal.
6. The exceptors in Docket No. 46,028, as identified in the memorandum in support of the exception, are: the Louisiana Department of Health, Simeon Jackson, Latise Chopain, Bobby Parker, Elizabeth Cain, Steve Lea, Janet Johnson, Richard Bethley, Jr., Delbert Griffin, Shawn Kelly, Ryan Toliver, and Lt. Ducet. These exceptors also filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription; however, this exception was not addressed at the hearing.
7. In ruling on Valley Services ’s exception of lack of procedural capacity, the trial court noted that the law recognizes the lack of procedural capacity of both interdicts and mental incompetents who have not been interdicted. The trial court sustained the exception of lack of procedural capacity “[b]ased on the evidence, based on the fact that [Walcott] has alleged in some of his pleadings that he is a pretrial detainee, based on the fact that he has been found incompetent to proceed and he is being held pending, either restoration of competency, or a finding that he is irrestorably incompetent.” Concluding that “there is no action by the plaintiff that can cure this problem,” the court dismissed Walcott's claim against Valley Services without prejudice.
8. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1951(A) allows for amendment of a final judgment in order to correct deficiencies in decretal language. Such an amendment may only be made after a hearing with notice to all parties; however, a hearing is not required if all parties consent or if the court or the party submitting the amended judgment certifies that it was provided to all parties at least five days before the amendment and that no opposition has been received.
THERIOT, J.
J. McDonald, concurs by result.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: NO. 2021 CA 0670
Decided: March 31, 2022
Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)