Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

COMEAUX v. NEUSTROM et al

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
6:13-cv-00768 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Marcus Jude Comeaux
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Western District of Louisiana
Date Filed: 
Apr 11 2013

C O U N T I
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants)

76. Plaintiff adopts and restates those allegations contained in Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy-Five (75), in their entirety, as if fully copied in extenso herein.

77. Plaintiff claims damages for the injuries set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Neustrom, Reardon, Guidry, Hiatt, Reviere, Gary, and Caddy.

78. Plaintiff claims these Defendant Officers and private co-conspirator Caddy caused the damages aforesaid under the color of law by acting in violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.

79. The conduct and actions of the Defendants named herein were done under color of state law and in their individual and official capacities and squarely within the scope of their employment.

80. Said acts by said Defendants were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and were an abuse of their powers, and said Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

81. Said acts by said Defendants were also willful, malicious, oppressive and/or reckless, such that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.

C O U N T I I
(Assault and Battery Against Individual Defendants)

82. Plaintiff adopts and restates those allegations contained in Paragraphs One (1) through Eighty-One (81), in their entirety, as if fully copied in extenso herein.

83. Defendants Neustrom, Reardon, Guidry, Hiatt, Reviere, Gary, and Caddy caused and/or materially contributed to an egregious sexual assault and battery upon Plaintiff Marcus Jude Comeaux.

84. Plaintiff avers that the said Defendants knowingly, wantonly, intentionally, and with gross disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff permitted a prosecution to commence wherein Plaintiff was locked away inside a facility being operated by a sexual predator in Defendant Guidry.

85. As a result of this arrest (and the emanating sexual assault / battery), Plaintiff Marcus Jude Comeaux suffered damages as aforesaid.

C O U N T I I I
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Sheriff Neustrom / Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office)

86. Plaintiff adopts and restates those allegations contained in Paragraphs One (1) through Eighty-Five (85), in their entirety, as if fully copied in extenso herein.

87. Prior to April 11, 2012, the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office developed and maintained policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the Parish of Lafayette, which policies or customs caused the violation of the Plaintiff’s rights.

88. It was the policy and/or custom of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office to inadequately and improperly investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct, and acts of misconduct were instead acquiesced to by the Sheriff’s Office.

89. It was the policy and/or custom of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office to tolerate known misconduct by Defendants Officers

90. Both prior and subsequent to April 11, 2012, the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office had actual or constructive knowledge of prior incidents of police misconduct and failed to take adequate remedial action.

91. It was the policy and/or custom of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office to inadequately supervise and train its police officers, including Officers Guidry, Hiatt, Reviere, and/or Gary, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers.

92. It was the policy and/or custom of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office to not require appropriate in-service training or re-training of officers who were known to have engaged in police misconduct.

93. As a result of the above described policies and customs, police officers of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office, including Defendants Guidry, Hiatt, Reviere, and/or Gary, believed that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and that misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would be tolerated.

94. The Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office, by and through Sheriff Neustrom, instituted and supported unconstitutional acts, customs, and policies whereby officers with the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office were permitted and encouraged to engage in the abuse of their status as law enforcement officers, acting in the aide of private citizens, such as Defendant Caddy, in pursuit of private vendettas and grievances.

95. The acts, customs, and policies of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office amounted to deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and proximately caused him injuries as alleged herein.

96. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office (by and through Sheriff Neustrom) is fully responsible for the tortious acts of the individual law enforcement employees named herein.

97. The above described policies and customs demonstrated a deliberate indifference on the part of policymakers of the Parish of Lafayette, including Defendant Sheriff Neustrom, to the constitutional rights of persons within the Parish of Lafayette, and were the cause of the violations of Plaintiff’s rights alleged herein.

C O U N T I V
(State Law Action Against All Defendants)

98. Plaintiff adopts and restates those allegations contained in Paragraphs One (1) through Ninety-Seven (97), in their entirety, as if fully copied in extenso herein.

99. Defendant Officers Hiatt and Reviere failed to exercise due care and failed to properly analyze the facts clearly known to them and, by doing so, they violated Plaintiff’s rights under Louisiana law by falsely arresting Plaintiff and illegally detaining Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit.
100. Defendant Officers Guidry and Gary, together with other unknown officers, caused
Plaintiff to suffer a sexual assault and battery.

C O U N T V
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants)

101. Plaintiff adopts and restates those allegations contained in Paragraphs One (1) through One Hundred (100), in their entirety, as if fully copied in extenso herein.

102. As a direct and proximate consequence of the unconscionable acts and omissions on the part of the Defendants as described above, the Defendant Officers intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff.

103. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to a monetary judgment against the Defendants, both jointly and severally.

C O U N T V I
(Attorney Fees Against All Defendants)

104. Plaintiff adopts and restates those allegations contained in Paragraphs One (1) through One Hundred Three (103), in their entirety, as if fully copied in extenso herein.

105. The Plaintiff contends that he is also entitled to the awarding of reasonable attorney fees as a part of the costs of prosecuting the present cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.