Savoy v. Kenner Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRADLEY JOSEPH LAWRENCE SAVOY 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	No. 25-1178
KENNER POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. 	SECTION I
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Beacon Behavioral Hospital’s (“Beacon”) motion1
to dismiss plaintiff Bradley Joseph Lawrence Savoy’s (“plaintiff”) complaint2 against
Beacon pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff has not submitted a response to the motion and the deadline to file a timely
response has passed.3 For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Beacon’s motion
to dismiss.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case arises out of an encounter between plaintiff and Kenner police
officers.4 Plaintiff alleges that on August 10, 2024, he suffered “a heat-related medical
emergency while at the United States Post Office in Kenner, Louisiana.”5 He claims
1 R. Doc. No. 27. Beacon is a Louisiana mental health care services provider
specializing 	in 	both 	inpatient 	and 	intensive 	outpatient 	treatment. 	BEACON
BEHAVIORAL , https://beaconbh.com/ (last visited Nov. 6, 2025).
2 R. Doc. No. 1.
3 Beacon’s motion to dismiss was submitted for decision before this Court on
November 5, 2025. R. Doc. 27-2. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, a party opposing a motion
must file a response in opposition “no later than eight days before the noticed
submission date.” Accordingly, the deadline for plaintiff to file a timely response was
October 28, 2025.
4 R. Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 10–19.
5 Id. ¶ 10.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 10

2
that he then engaged in a conversation with Kenner police officers, who detained and
physically 	restrained 	plaintiff 	“despite 	[him] 	being 	neither 	under 	arrest 	nor
exhibiting violent or criminal behavior.”6 Plaintiff claims that emergency medical
personnel arrived at the scene, but failed to treat plaintiff’s heat-related condition,
instead treating him as a “combative subject.”7
Plaintiff alleges that he was then taken to Ochsner Medical Center – Kenner,
where he “was forcibly injected with a psychotropic sedative commonly used for
behavioral control—without a court order, informed consent, or medical emergency,”
despite the fact that he explicitly refused to accept any psychiatric medication.8
Plaintiff further alleges that he was then involuntarily transferred to Beacon
“without 	any judicial 	commitment 	process, 	mental 	health 	evaluation, 	or valid
consent.”9 According to plaintiff’s complaint, at no time was he arrested, charged with
a crime, read his Miranda rights, or subjected to a civil commitment proceeding.10
Plaintiff has filed a complaint “pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” alleging
excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, forced injection without
consent, and false imprisonment.11 Plaintiff named as defendants the City of Kenner,
Kenner Police Department, Ochsner Medical Center – Kenner, Beacon, and Kenner
Emergency Medical Services.12
6 Id. ¶ 13.
7 Id. ¶ 14.
8 Id. ¶¶ 15–16.
9 Id. ¶ 17.
10 Id. ¶ 18.
11 Id.
12 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 10

3
The City of Kenner subsequently filed its motion to dismiss13 pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), asserting that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and that the Kenner Police Department and Kenner Emergency Medical
Services cannot be sued because they are not legal entities. The Court granted the
City of Kenner’s motion on October 24, 2025, and dismissed plaintiff’s claims against
the City.14
Neither 	the 	Kenner 	Police 	Department 	nor 	Kenner 	Emergency 	Medical
Services filed an answer within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12, and plaintiff failed to move for an entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(a) as to either defendant.15 Accordingly, on September 30, 2025,
this 	Court 	ordered16 	plaintiff 	to 	show 	cause 	why 	defendants 	Kenner 	Police
Department and Kenner Emergency Medical Services should not be dismissed. In
that order, the Court advised that “[t]he defendants listed will be dismissed upon
failure of the plaintiff to report the status thereof or in the absence of good cause
shown why the defendants should remain on the docket.”17 Plaintiff did not appear
at the hearing.18 Consequently, the Court dismissed defendants Kenner Police
Department and Kenner Emergency Medical Services.19
13 R. Doc. No. 11.
14 R. Doc. No. 29.
15 R. Doc. No. 25.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 R. Doc. No. 28.
19 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 10

4
Defendant Ochsner Medical Center – Kenner filed its motion20 to dismiss
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) on September 25, 2025,
arguing that it was not properly served with process and that plaintiff failed to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. This Court granted the motion on
November 4, 2025, and accordingly dismissed Ochsner Medical Center – Kenner as a
party.21
Plaintiff’s complaint states four claims against five defendants, but the only
claim 	plaintiff 	alleges 	against 	Beacon 	is 	for 	“false 	imprisonment 	/ 	unlawful
transport.”22 Plaintiff argues that Beacon “unlawfully transported and confined
[p]laintiff 	in 	a 	mental 	health 	facility 	without 	lawful 	process 	or 	justification,
constituting false imprisonment under both federal due process and Louisiana state
law.”23
II. STANDARD OF LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) allows a defendant to file a motion for
dismissal for “insufficient process.” “An objection under Rule 12(b)(4) concerns the
form of the process rather than the manner or method of its service.” Baton Rouge
Total Care Ctr. v. Regency 14333, No. 14-168, 2014 WL 5794995, at *1 (M.D. La. Nov.
6, 2014) (quoting 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, F EDERAL P RACTICE AND
P ROCEDURE § 1353 (3d ed.)). “Technically, therefore, a Rule 12(b)(4) motion is proper
20 R. Doc. No. 23.
21 R. Doc. No. 31.
22 R. Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 20–26.
23 Id. ¶ 26.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 10

5
only to challenge noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 4(b) or any applicable
provision incorporated by Rule 4(b) that deals specifically with the content of the
summons.” 	Id. 	“Conversely, 	a 	‘Rule 	12(b)(5) 	motion 	is 	the 	proper 	vehicle 	for
challenging the mode of delivery or the lack of delivery of the summons and
complaint.’” Id. (quoting Wright & Miller, § 1353); see also Raburn v. Dae Woo, Inc.,
No. 09-1172, 2010 WL 743933, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2010) (“A 12(b)(5) motion to
dismiss poses a challenge to the manner or method or service attempted by the
plaintiff rather than the form or content of the summons.”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) provides that an action may be
dismissed for “insufficient service of process.” Rule 12(b)(5) allows “dismissal of a
claim if service of process was not timely made in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4 or was not properly served in the appropriate manner.” Worley v.
Louisiana, No. 10-3313, 2012 WL 218992, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 25, 2012) (Africk, J.)
(quoting Wallace v. St. Charles Sch. Bd., No. 04-1376, 2005 WL 1155770, at *1 (E.D.
La. May 5, 2005) (Duval, J.)). Absent proper service of process, the court cannot
exercise jurisdiction over a party named as a defendant. Murphy Bros., Inc. v.
Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999).
“When service of process is challenged, the serving party bears the burden of
proving its validity or good cause” for failing properly to effect service. Shabazz v. City
of Houston, 515 F. App’x 263, 264 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sys. Signs Supplies v. U.S.
Dep’t of Just., 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)). “[T]he district court
enjoys a broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss an action for ineffective
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 10

6
service of process.” Hawkins v. Potter, 234 F.App’x 188, 189 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting
George v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 788 F.2d 1115,
1116 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
Rule 4(c)(1) provides that “[a] summons must be served with a copy of the
complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served
within the time allowed by Rule 4(m).” To serve “a domestic or foreign corporation, or
a partnership or other unincorporated association” in a judicial district of the United
States, Rule 4(h) requires that the organization must be served:
(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or
(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a
managing24 	or 	general 	agent, 	or 	any 	other 	agent 	authorized 	by
appointment or by law to receive service of process and–if the agent is one
authorized by statute and the statute so requires–by also mailing a copy of
each to the defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). To serve an individual pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1), the plaintiff must
“follow[] state law for serving a summons . . . in the state where the district court is
located or where service is made.”
To properly serve a limited liability company pursuant to Louisiana law, the
plaintiff must serve the “citation or other process . . . by personal service on any one
24 A managing agent is someone who exerts significant managerial authority within
the corporation and is a “responsible party in charge of any substantial phase” of a
corporation. Ganpat v. E. Pac. Shipping, PTE. Ltd. 434 F.Supp.3d 441, 458–59 (E.D.
La. 2020) (Morgan, J.) (quoting Duncan v. City of Hammond, No. 08-5043, 2009 WL
10680059, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 31, 2009) (Vance, J.) (holding that an individual is not
a managing agent when they cannot bind the corporation in a contract, hire or fire
employees, or exercise executive responsibilities on behalf of the corporation)). A
“managing agent” cannot be someone who is only involved in one aspect of the
defendant’s business. Id. at 460.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 6 of 10

7
of its agents for service of process.”25 L A. CODE CIV. P. art. 1266(A). An “agent”
authorized to receive service of process refers to a party who has been designated by
an organization to receive process on its behalf. See T.D. Auto Fin., LLC v. Higgs, 417
So.3d 790, 793–94 (La. Ct. App. 2025) (“Louisiana law prescribes that, if the LLC has
a designated agent for service of process, the LLC can be properly served by personal
service on any one of its agents designated for service of process.”).
Pursuant to Rule 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against
that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” “But if the
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service
for an appropriate period.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). “To establish good cause, a plaintiff
bears the burden of demonstrating ‘at least as much as would be required to show
excusable neglect.’” Sims v. Landrieu Concrete & Cement Indus. LLC, No. 18-9932,
2020 WL 2617867, at *2 (E.D. La. May 24, 2020) (Milazzo, J.) (quoting Winters v.
Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 776 F.2d 1304, 1306 (5th Cir. 1985)). “[S]imple
25 Beacon fails to affirmatively assert that it is a limited liability company. Beacon
applies federal and state laws for service of process on a corporation in its motion to
dismiss. However, because Beacon, as defined herein on page 1 of this order and
reasons, is registered as a limited liability company with the Louisiana Secretary of
State, its only officer is listed as “Beacon Behavioral Support Services LLC,” and its
only registered agent for service of process is listed as “Phillip Sean Wendell,” the
Court will take judicial notice of these facts. Thomas v. New Leaders for New Schools,
278 F.R.D. 347, 349 n. 5 (E.D. La. 2011) (Africk, J.) (taking judicial notice of an
organization’s registration on the Louisiana Secretary of State’s website to decide a
motion to dismiss for improper service of process); Fed. R. Evid. 201(c); Norris v.
Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is clearly proper in deciding
a 12(b)(6) motion to take judicial notice of matters of public record.”) (citing Cinel v.
Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 n.6 (5th Cir. 1994)).
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 7 of 10

8
inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice.”
Id. (quoting Winters, 776 F.2d at 1306).
III. 	ANALYSIS
At the outset, the Court finds that Beacon’s Rule 12(b)(4) motion is better
construed as a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5). See Baton Rouge Total Care Ctr.,
2014 WL 5794995, at *1. This is because Beacon does not challenge the form of the
process and does not argue that plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 4(b).26 See id.
Instead, Beacon challenges “the mode of delivery or the lack of delivery of the
summons and complaint,” for which Rule 12(b)(5) is the “proper vehicle.” Id.; see also
Raburn, 2010 WL 743933, at *1. Accordingly, the Court will evaluate Beacon’s
arguments regarding service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5).
The record shows that service was made on “Lakesha Young – Facility
Representative.”27 Lakesha Young is not Beacon’s registered agent for service of
process.28 Beacon’s registered agent for service of process is Phillip Sean Wendell.29
Nor is Lakesha Young listed as a managing agent or an officer of Beacon.30 Cf.
Ganpat, 434 F.Supp.3d at 458–61; Benson v. Fam. Health Ctr., 339 F.App’x 486, 487–
88 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that service of process upon an individual who was not a
corporate officer and did not maintain significant managerial authority within the
corporation did not satisfy the requirement that plaintiff serve an officer, managing
26 See generally R. Doc. No. 27-1.
27 R. Doc. No. 9-2 at 1.
28 R. Doc. No. 27-1 at 5.
29 Id.
30 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 8 of 10

9
agent, or authorized agent of the corporation and service of process was therefore
insufficient).
As stated, Beacon is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws
of the State of Louisiana. Therefore, to properly serve Beacon with process under
federal law, plaintiff was required to serve Beacon through its registered agent for
service of process, Phillip Sean Wendell, its corporate officer Beacon Behavioral
Support Services LLC,31 or a managing agent of Beacon—someone with the power to
exercise executive authority on behalf of Beacon.32 F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(h); see Ganpat,
434 F.Supp.3d at 458–61. Plaintiff has provided no evidence that Lakesha Young
meets any of these criteria.33 To properly serve Beacon with process pursuant to
Louisiana law, plaintiff was required to serve Phillip Sean Wendell, Beacon’s
designated agent for service of process.34 L A. CODE CIV. P. art. 1266(A). Plaintiff failed
to do so.35
By failing to file a response to Beacon’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff has failed
to show “good cause” that would excuse his failure to properly serve process upon
Beacon. F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(m); see also Sims, 2020 WL 2617867, at *2. Plaintiff’s claims
31 Beacon Behavioral Hospital, LLC, L OUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE, https://coraweb.
sos.la.gov/CommercialSearch/CommercialSearchDetails.aspx?CharterID=904426_4
BA5BB8338 (last visited Nov. 6, 2025).
32 Id.
33 See generally R. Doc. No. 1.
34 R. Doc. No. 27-1 at 5.
35 R. Doc. No. 9-2 at 1.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 9 of 10

10
against Beacon, therefore, are appropriately dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(5).36
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Beacon’s unopposed motion37 to dismiss is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s 	claims 	against 	Beacon 	are 	hereby 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 6, 2025.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
36 Because the Court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule
12(b)(5) is appropriate, the Court will not address Beacon’s arguments for dismissal
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
37 R. Doc. No. 27.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-LMA-EJD Document 32 Filed 11/07/25 Page 10 of 10