Aucoin v. Baio et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CRAIG JOSEPH AUCOIN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-939
DOMINQUE BAIO, ET AL. 	SECTION “H”(3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim.1 The Court provided Aucoin
with an opportunity to respond to the motion,2 but the order, as well as other mail
sent to him at his current address of record, was returned.3 Having considered the
memorandum, the record, and the applicable law, it is recommended that the motion
to dismiss be granted.
I. 	Background
Craig Joseph Aucoin, who was a pretrial detainee housed in the Jerry L.
Larpenter Criminal Justice Complex at the time of the allegations in his complaint,
filed this pro se civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act against defendants the Terrebonne
1 R. Doc. 43.
2 R. Doc. 46.
3 R. Docs. 45, 47, and 48. Pursuant to Local Rule 11.1, Aucoin has a continuing
obligation to “promptly to notify the court of any address or telephone number
change.” Aucoin acknowledged that responsibility when he signed his complaint. R.
Doc. 4 at 5. He was reminded of that responsibility by order dated May 27, 2025. R.
Doc. 6.
Case 2:25-cv-00939-EJD Document 50 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Parish 	Sheriff’s 	Office 	(“TPSO”), 	Terrebonne 	Parish 	Consolidated 	Government,
Sheriff Tim Soignet, Deputy Brendon Hebert, Deputy Brice Duthu, Deputy Collin
Partin, 	Colonel 	Stephen 	Bergeron, 	Warden 	Rhonda 	Ledet, 	Lieutenant 	Brie
Boudreaux, Lieutenant Samantha Bourgeois, Medical Administrator April Tomlin,
Tina 	Authement, 	Kellie 	Gaudet, 	and 	Dominique 	Baio.4 Aucoin 	challenges 	the
conditions 	of 	his 	confinement 	and 	raises 	claims 	of 	conspiracy 	to 	violate 	his
constitutional 	rights, 	deliberate 	indifference 	to 	his 	medical 	needs, 	retaliation,
discrimination in violation of the ADA/RA, as well as various state law claims. All
defendants, with the exception of the TPSO, have filed an answer.5
II. 	Standard of Law
In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[t]he court accepts all well-pleaded facts
as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” In re Katrina Canal
Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). “To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to
“ ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, a
court’s task is to “determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable
claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success.” Body by
Cook, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 869 F.3d 381, 385 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Doe
4 Aucoin was convicted prior to the time he filed his complaint, R. Doc. 4-1 at 33, and
was later transferred to a Louisiana Department of Corrections facility. R. Doc. 40.
5 R. Docs. 12 and 30.
Case 2:25-cv-00939-EJD Document 50 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 6

3
ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir.
2012)).
Still, the plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint is
insufficient if it contains merely “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” 	Iqbal, 	556 	U.S. 	at 	678 	(quoting 	Twombly, 	550 	U.S. 	at 	557).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Rather, a “claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). Courts make this determination based “only on ‘the facts stated in
the 	complaint 	and 	the 	documents 	either 	attached 	to 	or 	incorporated 	in 	the
complaint.’” Ferguson v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 802 F.3d 777, 780 (5th Cir.
2015) (quoting Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017 (5th Cir.
1996)). The court cannot consider evidence outside of the complaint on a motion to
dismiss. Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2002).
Ultimately, courts reviewing motions under Rule 12(b)(6) must dismiss all claims for
which the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations fail to state a cognizable claim
for which the defendant could reasonably be held responsible.
Case 2:25-cv-00939-EJD Document 50 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 6

4
III. 	Analysis
The Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office asserts that Aucoin has failed to state
a claim against it because it lacks legal status to be sued.6 The TPSO specifically
contends that it is not a “juridical person” under Louisiana law and lacks the capacity
to be sued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b) and state law.7
While Aucoin did not respond to the motion, he previously argued that he was
required to name the TPSO as a defendant under the ADA/RA.8 He, however,
conceded that dismissal of the TPSO as a defendant would be appropriate as he had
named defendant Sheriff Soignet and others in their official capacities.9
Aucoin is correct that “[s]uits under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act must be
brought against a ‘public entity as opposed to individuals.” Phillips Next Friend of
J.H. v. Prator, No. 20-30110, 2021 WL 3376524, at *2 n.2 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2021)
(citing Smith v. Harris County, 956 F.3d 311, 317 (5th Cir. 2020) and Smith v. Hood,
900 F.3d 180, 184 n.6 (5th Cir. 2018)). A sheriff’s office is a public entity within the
meaning of Title II of the ADA. Albright v. Sheriff’s Dept. Rapides Parish, No. 12-
2117, 2014 WL 4702579, at *3 (W.D. La. Sept. 22, 2014).
Nevertheless, an entity’s capacity to be sued must be determined by reference
to the law of the state in which the district court sits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). In
Louisiana, an entity “must qualify as a juridical person” to be capable of being sued.
6 R. Doc. 43 at 1; R. Doc. 43-1 at 1–3.
7 Id. at 3–4.
8 R. Doc. 35.
9 Id. at 4–5.
Case 2:25-cv-00939-EJD Document 50 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Harris v. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice, No. 18-13356, 2019 WL 2617175, at *2
(E.D. La. June 26, 2019) (citing Dejoie v. Medley, 945 So. 2d 968, 972 (La. App. 2 Cir.
2006)). The Louisiana Civil Code defines a “juridical person” as “an entity to which
the law attributes personality, such as a corporation or partnership.” La. Civ. Code
art. 24. The State of Louisiana grants no such legal status to any Parish Sheriff’s
Office. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Grant Parish Sheriff’s Department, 350 So.
2d 236, 238–39 (La. App. 3d Cir.), writ refused, 352 So.2d 235 (La. 1977); Theriot v.
Thibodeaux, 403 So. 3d 1122, 1124 n. 3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2024) (the Sheriff’s Office
cannot be a legal party to litigation). Thus, “under Louisiana law, ‘a sheriff’s office is
not a legal entity capable of being sued.’” Aucoin v. Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office,
No. 21-30322, 2022 WL 16657429, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022) (citing Cozzo v.
Tangipahoa Par. Council—President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 283 (5th Cir. 2002));
Hemphill v. Lopez, No. 13-4768, 2015 WL 4168194, at *3 (E.D. La. July 9, 2015)
(“[u]nder Louisiana law, a sheriff’s office, or police department, is a non-entity
incapable of being sued.”) (footnotes omitted)). As the TPSO is not a juridical person
capable of being sued, all claims against it should be dismissed.
It is not necessary to allow Aucoin to amend his complaint to name a proper
defendant as to his ADA/RA claims. A suit seeking to impose liability on the TPSO
may only be brought against Sheriff Soignet in his official capacity.10 Albright, 2014
10 Louisiana sheriffs are juridical entities that can be sued. Edmiston v. Louisiana
Small Business Development Center, 931 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2019).
Case 2:25-cv-00939-EJD Document 50 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 6

6
WL 4702579, at *5. As noted, Aucoin named Sheriff Soignet, the current Sheriff of
TPSO, in his official capacity.11
RECOMMENDATION
It is RECOMMENDED that the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, R. Doc. 43, be GRANTED,
and that all of Aucoin’s claims against the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party
has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to
object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of March, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11 R. Doc. 4-1 at 39.
Case 2:25-cv-00939-EJD Document 50 Filed 03/24/26 Page 6 of 6