|
|
DEVERS v. SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
712 So.2d 199 (1998)
Patrick N. DEVERS
v.
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY and A & M College.
Patrick N. DEVERS
v.
Gerald C. PEOPLES, et al.
Nos. 97 CA 0259, 97 CA 0260.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
April 8, 1998.
Bernard J. Hardy, Baton Rouge, for Plaintiff/Appellee Patrick Devers.
Winston G. Decuir, David G. Sanders, Linda Law Clark, Baton Rouge, for Defendant/Appellant Southern University.
Before CARTER and FITZSIMMONS, JJ., and CHIASSON,1 J. Pro Tem.
CARTER, Judge. This is an appeal by Southern University and A & M College (Southern University) from a trial court judgment declaring its dormitory sweep policy prima facie unconstitutional. The plaintiff, Patrick Devers (Devers), answered the appeal asserting the trial court erred in dismissing a number of defendants and denying his discovery motions and request for sanctions.2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYOn March 8, 1995, Devers, a student at Southern University, was arrested following the discovery of twelve bags of marijuana in his dormitory room. The discovery was made pursuant to a dormitory sweep authorized by Southern University's Housing Agreement, which students living in campus housing are required to sign. Devers was issued an administrative expulsion and prohibited from attending classes. On March 23, 1995, Devers filed a suit for damages and an injunction against Southern University. Devers sought a temporary restraining order from his expulsion. On March 27, 1995, the trial court issued an order vacating Devers' administrative expulsion and ordering Devers to only be suspended from classes until the Judiciary Committee of Southern University determined whether he had violated the Southern University code of conduct manual. The Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hold a hearing on March 30, 1995. On March 28, 1995, while Devers was on the Southern University campus attempting to gather evidence for his disciplinary hearing before the Judiciary Committee, he was detained, arrested, and forced off the campus. Devers filed a Rule for Contempt on March 30, 1995, alleging Southern University's actions violated the March 27, 1995 court order. After hearing the charges against Devers, the Judiciary Committee found Devers guilty of the following violations of the code of student conduct: 1.13 Manufacturing, Distributing, or Selling Drugs or Narcotics; 1.14 Possession of Drugs, Narcotics or Marijuana. The Judiciary Committee recommended Devers be expelled from Southern University. In a letter dated March 31, 1995, Gerald Peoples, the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, notified Devers that he agreed with the recommendation of expulsion and informed Devers of the appeal procedure. Devers never pursued the appeal procedure. Instead, on April 10, 1995, Devers amended his original suit and asserted an action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983,3 arising out of the alleged unconstitutional search of his dormitory room.
1. Judge Remy Chiasson, retired, is serving as judge pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court. 2. Southern University filed an ex parte motion to dismiss Devers' appeal of issues under Louisiana Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-8.4, arguing Devers did not answer the appeal. The motion is denied. Verification has been made that Devers did timely answer the appeal by filing an answer in the district court on December 12, 1996. 3. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 provides in pertinent part:
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.... 4. The record contains two judgments. The first judgment signed on October 28, 1996, granted Devers' motion for summary judgment declaring the dormitory sweep policy of Southern University unconstitutional. The second judgment signed on November 13, 1996, reflected all of the rulings of the trial court on pending motions and exceptions heard at the October 21, 1996 hearing. This duplicity of judgments is not encouraged. 5. At the time the summary judgments were granted in the present case, LSA-C.C.P. art. 966 provided in pertinent part:
C. After adequate discovery or after a case is set for trial, a motion which shows that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law shall be granted against an adverse party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of proof of an element essential to his claim, action, or defense and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial. * * * * * * E. A summary judgment may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages. F. A summary judgment may be rendered on the issue of insurance coverage alone, although there is a genuine issue as to liability or the amount of damages. G. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the burden of proof shall remain with the mover. 6. LSA-C.C.P art. 224 provides in part:
A constructive contempt of court is any contempt other than a direct one. Any of the following acts constitutes a constructive contempt of court: (4) Deceit or abuse of the process or procedure of the court by a party to an action or proceeding, or by his attorney; (10) Any other act or omission punishable by law as a contempt of court, or intended to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority, and which is not a direct contempt. LSA-C.C.P. art. 225 provides in pertinent part: A. Except as otherwise provided by law, a person charged with committing a constructive contempt of court may be found guilty thereof and punished therefor only after the trial by the judge of a rule against him to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt and punished accordingly. The rule to show cause may issue on the court's own motion or on motion of a party to the action or proceeding and shall state the facts alleged to constitute contempt.... B. If the person charged with contempt of court is found guilty the court shall render an order reciting the facts constituting contempt, adjudging the person charged with contempt guilty thereof, and specifying the punishment imposed.
|
|