STATE OF LOUISIANA THIRD CIRC COURT OF APPEAL feb DOCKET NUMBER: THERESA RICHARD and MITCHEL RICHARD VERSUS ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE. ON APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY SUPERVISORY WRIT AND STAY ORDER FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER: 2016-10111 G THE HONORABLE LAURIE HULIN, Presiding Judge ORGINAL EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT AND STAY ORDER PURSUANT TO THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL’S SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION ON BEHALF OF THERESA RICHARD AND MITCHEL RICHARD PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT L. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P.L.C. L. Clayton Burgess (22979) 605 West Congress Street Lafayette, LA 70501 Telephone: 337-234-7573 Facsimile: 337-233-3890 E-Mail; Icburgess@clayburgess.com ATTORNEY FOR ‘THERESA RICHARD AND MITCHEL RICHARDINDEX. Headin; Page No. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION... STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..... STATEMENT OF THE CASE... ISSUES AND QUESTIONS OF LAW .... ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR... LAW AND ARGUMENT. CONCLUSION... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .... AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY ... Exhibit No. A. Security Guidelines, Fifteenth Judicial District ..... B. Opinion 15-0027 by Attorney General, State of Louisiana . 2 Petition for Damages......... D. Motion for Recusation and Incorporated Memorandum .. E. E-Mail from Honorable Laurie A. Hulin’s staff, March 13,2017... F. E-Mail from Honorable Laurie A. Hulin’s staff, March 15,2017, GH Notice of Imbert er rcae eseaitec se iter eerste seo H. Reasons for Ruling...JUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION AND STAY ORDER ‘The instant emergency writ application and request for stay order involves a request by Petitioner for the Third Circuit Court of Appeal to exercise its supervisory Jurisdiction as it relates to the trial court's ex parte denial of a motion to recuse all judges of the 15" Judicial District Court because said judges are witnesses in the cause and also are interested in the outcome of the cause to such an extent that it may affect the outcome of the case. ‘A major issue in the case involves the applicability and constitutionality of a 15" Judicial District Court en banc Order that is intended to “supersede any existing security procedures” within the clerk of court’s office located within the confines of 15 Judi District Court buildings. The Defendants rely on this Order in support of their pending Motion for Summary Judgment, set for hearing on March 20, 2017, and Petitioner expressly challenged the constitutionality of said Order on the grounds that it is overreaching and overbroad Petitioner, recognizing the apparent issue that will arise with the 15% Judicial District Court having to rule on the propriety and constitutionality of their own en banc Order, respectfully moved for all judges to recuse themselves or, in the alternative, to have a hearing on the recusation issue before an ad hoc judge from an adjoining district. Despite clear black letter law on the procedures for recusation, the trial court denied Petitioner’s motion ex parte and thus denied Petitioner of her fundamental constitutionally protected rights of equal protection and fundamental due process. Because of the gravity of the situation and the unequivocal right of Petitioner to, at minimum, have a contradictory hearing on her Motion for Recusation. ‘ Exhibit A — Security Guidelines, Fifteenth Judicial Districtrespectfully submitted that Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury as a result of the substantial injustice that has been thrust upon her. Itis because of the gravity of the circumstances and the potential irreparable injury to be sustained that Petitioner respectfully requests expedited consideration and a stay order. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ‘The supervisory jurisdiction of this Honorable Court has been invoked pursuant to Article 5, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 and pursuant to Article 2201 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner has filed this emergency application for supervisory writ pursuant to this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter involves a violation of Petitioner's civil rights as she was wrongfully deprived of her fundamental right to access and photograph public records, which subsequently led to-her being detained without even a semblance of reasonable suspicion that she was doing anything wrong. On February 10, 2015, Petitioner traveled to the Acadia Parish Clerk of Court's Office to review public records. Petitioner began taking photographs of said records with her cell phone and was promptly detained by Deputy Smith of the Acadia Parish Shetifi’s Office. Petitioner was expressly informed that she was not free to leave as Deputy Smith attempted to identify which crime he thought she committed. Suit was filed against the Acadia Parish Clerk of Court, Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office, and Deputy Smith. Defendants Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office and Deputy Smith moved for summary judgment, relying heavily on the en banc Order of the 15" Judicial District Court, signed on January 15, 2015, that “supersedes any existing security procedures” and, in pertinent part, mandated the following:“Any object deemed not to be appropriate, and/or in the guard’s opinion could be used as a weapon, may be confiscated and held. The holder/owner may be directed to return such item(s) to his/her vehicle. Inappropriate objects include sharp items (knives, scissors, razors, etc.), cameras, cellphones with recording capability, and mace." ‘The aforesaid court order was apparently intended to include all courtrooms and all clerk of court's offices located within the confines of the 15% Judicial District Court. Paul G. Moresi, Assistant District Attorney for Vermilion Parish, submitted a written request to the Attorney General regarding these new security procedures. ‘The Attomey General issued Opinion 15-0027° on May 15, 2015, which states, in pertinent part, the following: “On more than one occasion our office has addressed the issue of courthouse security and generally opined that security provided in the courthouse is the responsibility of the parish governing authority. See La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos 12-0187 and 92-742. ‘Therefore, in accord with the prior opinions of this office, it is the opinion of this office that the Police Jury bears the general responsibility for providing security at the Courthouse and has the general authority to establish the appropriate security guidelines and procedures at the Courthouse. This would include the general authority to establish security procedures in courtrooms, judicial offices, and hallways of the Courthouse, as well as the general authority to establish procedures for cell phone use at the Courthouse. Although it is the opinion of this office that the Police Jury has the general authority to establish the appropriate security guidelines and procedures at the Courthouse, we are also of the opinion that a district judge has the authority to regulate cell phone use in his/her courtroom and judicial offices, as well as the general authority to establish guidelines and procedures concerning courtroom behavior and decorum.” In summary, the Louisiana Attorney General is of the opinion that district judges may regulate security procedures regarding cell phone usage only as it pertains to their courtroom and judicial offices (i.e. chambers). It is the police jury of each parish that has the authority to regulate security procedures regarding cell 2 Exhibit A — Security Guidelines, Fifteenth Judicial District, > Exhibit B - Opinion 15-0027 by Attorney General, State of Louisianaphone usage as it pertains to all other areas of the respective courthouse, including the clerk of court’s office. Accordingly, a major issue that the 15" Judicial District Court will have to decide in their summary judgment determination is whether their very own en bane Order was constitutional or not at the time of Petitioner's detention. It should go without saying that every single 15" Judicial District Court is interested in the outcome of this determination to such an extent that they would be unable to conduct a fair and impartial proceeding. There are checks and balances that must be adhered to and it should not be such a complex issue to have an ad hoc judge from an adjoining district make this determination. Petitioner filed the Petition for Damages on February 8, 2016.* Petitioner filed their Motion for Recusation’ on March 3, 2017, prior to the summary judgment hearing before Judge Laurie Hulin that was set for March 14, 2017. A hearing on said Motion for Recusation was set for March 14, 2017, and all parties were informed that Judge Hulin “[did] not intend to rule from the bench” and “all other motions will need to be reset until a ruling is issued on the Motion for Recusation."* An off-the-record pre-trial conference was held on March 14, 2017, where all parties were informed that a judges meeting was set to occur later that day and the issue of en banc recusation would be discussed, All parties agreed to continue the hearing on the Motion for Recusation, tentatively for March 20, 2017, and that everyone would reconvene via conference call the next day to discuss the matter. Instead, only a few hours prior to the scheduled conference call, Petitioner was informed that Judge Hulin “has issued her ruling denying the Motion for Recusation,” ex parte without a hearing.’ Furthermore, Defendants’ Motion for for Damages > Exhibit D ~ Motion for Recusation and Incorporated Memorandum * Exhibit E - E-Mail from Honorable Laurie A. Hulin’s staff, March 13, 2017 7 Exhibit F — E-Mail from Honorable Laurie A. Hulin’s staff, March 15,2017Summary Judgment would, in fact, be set for March 20, 2017; not Petitioner’s Motion for Recusation as tentatively agreed upon at the pre-trial conference® Notice of Intent to Apply for Emergency Writs was filed into the record on March 16, 20172 ISSUES AND QUESTIONS OF LAW 1, May all judges of a judicial district court be recused en banc? 2. May a judge against whom a Motion for Recusation has been filed against continue to act in the cause after said Motion has been filed? 3. Do the judges of a judicial district court have an interest in the outcome of a constitutionality determination of their own en banc Order, to such an extent that they would all be unable to conduct fair and impartial proceedings? ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The trial court committed reversible error in the performance of their duties as it related to the instant matter. The trial court has taken action in this matter after the filing of the Motion for Recusation, which is expressly prohibited, and has effectuated the denial of said Motion ex parte. Asa result of the trial court’s conduct, Petitioner has been denied equal protection of the laws and due process. LAW AND ARGUMENT It is an axiomatic and fundamental principal that our system of ordered liberty and justice requires adherence to the constitutional principles of equal protection of the laws and due process of law. It is equally self evident that in order for such principles to even exist the judiciary, must at all times, remain independent from the lawyer's bar and faithful to the law and always uphold the integrity and impartially of the judiciary. ® Exhibit F— E-Mail from Honorable Laurie A. Hulin’s staff, March 15,2017 ° Exhibit G — Notice of Intention to Apply for Emergency Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus and ProhibitionThe Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon I, provides that “an independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.” It requires that a Judge “should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing, and shall personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved” and that “the provisions of the Code ‘are to be constructed and applied to further that objective.” The Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon II, mandates that a “Judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” and that a “Judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgement” and further provides that “a Judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of the Judge or others: nor shall a Judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Judge.” Canon III mandates that a “Judge shall be faithful to the Jaw and maintain professional competence in it,” and that a “Judge shall preform judicial duties without bias or prejudice” and that a “Judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly. Moreover, Canon III mandates that a “Judge shall disqualify himself or herself proceeding in which the Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned and shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which disqualification is required by law or applicable Supreme Court Rule.” The facts of this case and the issues presented pose a fairly novel situation. The 15” Judicial District Court issued an en banc Order that directly led to Petitioner's unlawful detention, and Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of said Order on the grounds that it is overreaching and overbroad. It is fairly clear that a judicial district court has no jurisdiction to enact security guidelines in the clerk of court’s office; that is a duty reserved explicitly for the police jury. Accordingly, thisis a major issue in the present case and Petitioner has a right to challenge the constitutionality of the 15" Judicial District Court's en banc Order. However, the issue of whether any judge of the 15" Judicial District Court can fairly rule on the constitutionality of their very own Order must be determined first. It should go without saying that there will be an appearance of impropriety if the 15% Judicial District Court rules that their own Order is constitutional. Of course, how likely would it even be for a district court to assert that their own en banc order is unconstitutional? ‘To say that the 15" Judicial District Court may be interested in the outcome of the constitutionality issue is an understatement; naturally it would be in their best interest to rule that their en banc orders have integrity and should be relied upon. Accordingly, it would be a disservice to no one for the 15" Judicial District Court judges to recuse themselves. Alternatively, if the judges choose not to recuse themselves, it would also be a disservice to no one for the recusation issue to be decided by an ad hoc judge. But under no circumstances is it appropriate for the judges to both choose not to recuse themselves AND choose not to let an ad hoc judge rule on the matter. The trial court’s Reasons for Ruling" list a variety of reasons regarding why the court denied Petitioner’s Motion for Recusation without a hearing. First, the trial court asserts that the Motion for Recusation is untimely and should have been filed prior to the hearing on Defendant Acadia Parish Clerk of Court's exception. However, the constitutionality issue of the en banc Order has absolutely nothing to do with the aforesaid exception; the issue relates only to the other Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which has not been heard. A motion for recusation shall be filed prior to trial or hearing."’ Simply because a hearing on a different party’s unrelated issue occurred prior to the filing of Petitioner's Motion does not © Exhibit H ~ Reasons for Ruling ™ LA-CCP Art, 154make said motion untimely. ‘The constitutionality issue of the en banc Order is paramount only to the determination of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and since that motion has not been heard yet, Petitioner's Motion for Recusation is timely. The law is clear. Next, the trial court asserts that the Motion for Recusation fails to allege or state any fact or detail that would require this court to refer the motion for hearing. Petitioner’s Motion is fairly self-explanatory regarding the grounds for recusation: the 15% Judicial District Court has an unquestionable interest in the outcome of whether or not their very own en banc Order is unconstitutionally overbroad and overreaching, to such an extent that would make them unable to conduct fair and impartial proceedings. The trial court’s actions in improperly denying Petitioner’s Motion for Recusation only furthers the point that they should not be entrusted in deciding the many issues as it appears impossible that the trial court would ever declare an action of theirs, notably the en banc Order, to be unconstitutional. Petitioner even supports their contentions in their Motion with an advisory opinion of the Attorney General, who heavily implied that the Order may be overbroad and overreaching. Thus, Petitioner has stated well-founded grounds for recusation that, at the very minimum, should be referred to an ad hoc judge. Finally, the trial court questions “whether there is a procedural mechanism to recuse all of the judges of the Fifteenth Judicial District by way of one motion filed in one division”? In Leslie Williams Counselman v. Progressive Insurance ‘Company, a motion to recuse all 15" Judicial District Court judges was filed in the wial court, who denied the motion.ex parte; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's writs in part, vacating the trial court's denial, staying all proceedings, and appointing an ad hoc judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing on plaintiff's ® Exhibit G— Reasons for Ruling 10motion. Therefore, at minimum, there is legal basis to have an ad hoc judge determine whether all judges of a district court may be recused en banc. Any litigant, whether plaintiff or defendant, is constitutionally guaranteed, among others, the inalienable right of due process, which has been defined as “fundamental fairness”; “equal protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action”"5; “guarantee that no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life, liberty or property"; as well as a “law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds on inquiry and renders a judgment only after trial.”"” Most importantly, due process “forbids condemnation without a hearing.”"* It is respectfully submitted that the manner in which the trial court disposed of this matter violated Petitioner's constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection of the laws and due process. After all, if the trial court so easily rejected the Motion for Recusation without a hearing, despite the adequate grounds contained therein, then the likelihood that the court will give credence to Petitioner's constitutional arguments against the court's very own en banc Order is incredibly low. LA-CCP Art. 963 mandates that all contradictory motions be set for hearing and tried contradictorily. At the very minimum, Petitioner has the right to have an ad hoc judge decide the recusation issue. Denying Petitioner's motion without a hearing is simply procedurally improper. CONCLUSION The 15" Judicial District Court unquestionably has an interest as to the outcome of the constitutionality determination of their very own en banc Order; it would be hard pressed for any judge to rule against their own integrity. Petitioner is 01-2335 (La. 8/13/01), 794 So.2d 837 ™4 State in Interest of A.E., 448 So.2d 183 (La. App. 4" Cir. 1984) 'S Babineaux v. Judiciary Commission, 341 So.2d 396 (La. 1976) id. "Black's Law Dictionary, 5® Edition Wd. cynot intending to accuse the judges of any ill will, but rather is providing them with an opportunity to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. Nobody will be prejudiced if a district judge of an adjoining district rules on the Motion for Recusation. Petitioner has stated well-plead grounds for recusation in her Motion, and thus the trial court’s ex parte denial is procedurally improper. Furthermore, Petitioner’s Motion is timely filed as the hearing on the constitutionality issue has not occurred. Accordingly, this Honorable Court should recuse the entirety of the 15" Judicial District Court or, in the alternative, refer the recusation issue to an ad hoc judge. Respectfully submitted: L. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P.L.C. 605 West Congress Street Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 Telephone: (337) 234-7573 Facsimile: (337) 233-3890CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing has this date been forwarded to all known counsel (H. Edward Barousse, counsel for Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office and Deputy Smith, 200 West Congress Street, Suite 1000, Lafayette, LA 70502-4305, 337-232-1604; and Stephen Stefanski, counsel for ‘Acadia Parish Clerk of Court, P.O. Drawer 730, Crowley, Louisiana 70527-0730, 337-783-7000) by facsimile and/or by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed. Further, a copy of the above and foregoing has this date been forwarded to the Honorable Laurie Hulin, 15th Judicial District Court, 100 North State Street, Suite 210, Abbeville, LA 70510, 337-898-4315, via facsimile and/or hand delivery. Lafayette, Louisiana, this 16" day of March, 2017. L.CL, ‘ON BURGESS BAFFIDAVIT STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF LAFAYETTE 1, L. Clayton Burgess, being first duly sworn, did depose and say that he is of counsel in the foregoing Original Emergency Application for Supervisory Writs and Request for Stay Order filed on behalf of Plaintiff, and that all of the allegations of fact contained herein are true and correct, save and except those made on information and as to those Affiant verily believes these allegations to be true and cortect to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Affiant hereby certified that copies of this original Emergency Application for Supervisory Writs and Request for Stay Order have this date been supplied to The Honorable Laurie Hulin, by facsimile and/or hand delivery, and opposing counsel and all parties not represented by counsel by facsimile and/or U.S. Mail. A SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this 16" day of March, 2017, at Lafayette, Louisiana. NOTARY PUBLIC #300STATE OF LOUISIANA THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL. re DOCKET NUMBER: THERESA RICHARD and MITCHEL RICHARD VERSUS, ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE ON APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY SUPERVISORY WRIT AND STAY ORDER FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER: 2016-10111 G ‘THE HONORABLE LAURIE HULIN, Presiding Judge ORGINAL EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT AND STAY ORDER PURSUANT TO THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL’S SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION ON BEHALF OF THERESA RICHARD AND MITCHEL RICHARD ORDER CONSIDERING the foregoing Supervisory Writ and Request for Stay Order: IT IS ORDERED that the proceedings presently pending before the Fifteenth Judicial District Court be stayed, pending the resolution of the Supervisory Writ now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeal for consideration. JUSTICE, THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALSECURITY GUIDELINES FIFTEENTH JODCIAL DISTRICT ive November {, 2014 1 Gaviieate employees my cary sce fr personal ptection when extaing or exiting fs building, but ft must be lef atthe employee's dea at any ote thas 1 Couto enpoys may eg clone vi phe apy no he Sulkin at ng atthe loess by pins vnen eae an inte courone amen ‘with photo/video ‘into the | as Jong as they: ay rng clears eo cepbily ino te oi, 1 Hremaee aaa vealed eee ease a Ths engin may ot uid oars clits ni ined acne phone per atomey. FIREARMS. {State of Doutstana ‘DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20, BOX 24005 BATON ROUGE ous D. “BuDOY" CaLDeRL ‘7ee0+ 8008. Props as May 18, 2015 OPINION 15-0027 soAct__PUBLIG FUNDS & CONTRACTS iis. sans Mr. Paul G. Moresi, Ill TRDIST COURT RULES Rue 52 Assistant District Attorney Susans P.O. Box 1140 $a Pte auhny Howmet ts utgen a atten ent rule of Secor and conduct win tel coro, ‘Abbeville, LA 70514 + iting not he ue ocr taaphenes. Dear Mr. Moresi, This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion of the Attomey General regarding security procedures being employed at the Vermilion Parish Courthouse ("Courthouse"). ‘According to your request, in December 2013 the Vermilion Parish Police Jury (‘Police Jury’) adopted security procedures in the form of Ordinance 2013-0-23 for the Courthouse and the premises on which it is located. Your request further indicates that ‘on January 18, 2015, the Police Jury received a copy of an en banc Order dated January 15, 2016, issued by the Judges of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court which set forth additional security procedures at the Courthouse, some of which are not included in Ordinance 2013-0-23. One of the additional security procedures is a restriction on who may possess cell phones in the Courthouse. Based on the foregoing facts, you ask for our opinion on the following questions: 4. Who has the authority to establish security procedures for the Courthouse? 2. Who has the authority to establish security procedures in the courtrooms, judicial offices, and hallways of the Courthouse? 3. Who has the authority to establish the procedures for cell phone use within the Courthouse? (On more than one occasion our office has addressed the issue of courthouse security and generally opined that security provided in the courthouse is the responsibility of the parish governing authority. See La. Atty. Gen. Op, Nos, 12-0187, and 92-742. For EXHIBIT nyMr. Paul G. Moresi, I Opinion 15-0027 Page 2 example, in Attorney General Opinion No, 12-0167 we were asked whether the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office is responsible for providing security for the Nineteenth Judicial District Courthouse, There, we recognized that La. R.S, 33:4713 governs, generally, a parish's obligation to provide for court, and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: : (A). Each parish shall provide and bear the expense of a suitable building and requisite furniture for the ‘sitting of the district and circuit courts and such offices, furniture, and equipment as may be needed by the clerks and recorders of the parish for'the proper conduct of their offices and shall provide such other offices as may be needed by the sherifis of these courts and by the tax collectors and assessors of the parish and shall provide the necessary heat and illumination therefor. Further, we noted that La. R.S. 33:4715 mandates ‘[i]he police jury of each parish shall provide a good and sufficient court-house.” Ultimately, we determined that security provided in the courthouse is the responsibility of the governing authority. Therefore, in accord with the prior opinions of this office, it is the opinion of this office that the Pofice Jury bears the general responsibility for providing security at the Courthouse and has the general authority to establish the appropriate security guidelines and procedures at the Courthouse. This would include the general authority to establish security procedures in courtrooms, judicial offices, and hallways of the Courthouse, as weil as the general authority to establish procedures for cell phone use at the Courthouse. Although it is the opinion of this office that the Police Jury has the general authority to establish the appropriate security guidelines and procedures at the Courthouse, we are also of the opinion that a district judge has the authority to regulate cell phone use in hisfher courtroom and judicial offices, a5 well as the general authority establish guidelines and procedures concerning courtroom behavior and decorum. La. G. C. P. art. 193 and La. R.S. 13:472 allow for judges to adopt court rules sitting en banc “for the ‘conduct of judicial business.” Additionally, Rule 6.1 of the Rules for Proceedings in District Court states, in pertinent part, that “a judge may prohibit the use of electronic devices, including cellular telephones and recording devices, in a courtroom.” In summary, it is the opinion of this office that the Police Jury has the general authority to establish the appropriate security guidelines and procedures at the Courthouse. This would include the authority to establish security guidelines and procedures for the courtrooms, judicial offices, and hallways located within the Courthouse, as well as the authority fo establish procedures for cell phone use at the Courthouse. Notwithstanding, district judges have the authority to regulate cell phone use in his/her courtroom and judicial offices, as well as the general authority establish guidelines and procedures concerning courtroom behavior and decorum. €Mr, Paul G, Moresi, til Opinion 18-0027 Page 3 We hope this sufficiently answers your inquiry; however, if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Yours very truly, JAMES D, “BUDDY” CALDWELL. Attorney General ‘Awa ANDREA L. BARIENT Assistant Attorney General EXHIBIT 4THERESA RICHARD and DOCKET No MITCHEL RICHARD 15th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VERSUS PARISH OF ACADIA ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his official eapacity as-an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH STATE OF LOUISIANA SHERIFE’S OFFICE. PETITION FOR DAMAGES NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff, THERESA RICHARD, a person of the full age of majority and a domiciliary of the City of Crowley, State of Louisiana, and MITCHEL RICHARD, a person of the full age of majority and a domiciliary of the City of Crowley, State of Louisiana, who, upon information and belief, respectfully represents: Made Defendants herein are: A. ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT upon information and belief, a judicial entity ‘and subdivision of the State of Louisiana at all times relevant; and B, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy who can be served at his place of employment; and. C. ACADIA PARISH SHERIFE’S OFFICE, a political subdivision of the state of Louisiana authorized to act within the Parish of Acadia, 2 ‘Venue is proper herein as the incidents sued upon occurred within this judicial district, 3 ‘Defendants are liable jointly for the following: On or about February 10, District Acadia Parish Clerk of Court's Offices in order to review @ lawsui ‘Crowley City Council meeting,When she entered through security at the front entrance, a written notice stated that cameras and cell phones would be banned after March 1*, ‘She entered civil records, retrieved the document she wanted to review, and sat at a desk to begin reading. 6. However, she quickly realized that the document was more than 20 pages long. She had to leave carly to pick up her grandchildren and she knew she would not have time to read the entire document. 7 Knowing that, she started to take a photograph of a page in the lawsuit when she was asked what she was doing by a clerk. 8 She answered candidly that she was taking a photograph. The clerk told her that she was not allowed to photograph records. 9. Ms. Theresa Richard asked if she speak with a supervisor to better understand the reasoning. 10. Ms, Theresa Richard was then approached by several clerks, who surrounded her and told her that she was not allowed to photograph “their” records. u. Ms, Theresa Richard never took another photo of any documents after being told that she could not photograph records. 12. Ms. Theresa Richard then asked if she could purchase copies of the record at the standard rate of $1.00 per page. 13. A Sheriff's deputy approached ’Ms. Theresa Richard and began allowing her to purchase the copies. : EXHIBIT CcM4. Suddenly, SherifP's Deputy Smith approached Ms, Theresa Richard and demanded her identification, 15, She asked Deputy Smith if she was being detained and he said that she was. 16. Ms, Theresa Richard then asked what crime she was suspected of and Deputy Smith answered “taking pictures of files.” 17, ‘The situation esealeted quickly: Deputy Smith escorted Ms. Theresa Richard to a separate «wing of the courthouse and began asking her to identify herself and told her that she was not free to leave. 18, Deputy Smith was smirking and giggling throughout the incident, Ms. Theresa Richard tried to video record Deputy Smith laughing at her. In response, Deputy Smith tried to snatch the cell phone out of Ms. Theresa Richard's hand. 19. Ms. Theresa Richard became frightened and felt helpless. She was detained for over one hour by Deputy Smith. 20. ‘Mr. Mitchel Richard then arrived at the courthouse and tried to see his wife, Ms. Theresa Richard. 21. A Sheriff's Deputy escorted Mr. Mitchel Richard out of the building and he was banned from entering the court house. He waited for his wife outside and was compliant at all times, 2. Deputy Smith retrieved a copy of Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:32: Duty to permit ‘examination; prevention of alteration; payment for overtime: copies provided; fees. Deputy Smith told Ms. Theresa Richard that it was the “law that [she] broke.” 23. : EXHIBIT cSDeputy Smith then told Ms. Theresa Richard that she and her husband were completely banned from the courthouse and would not be allowed to return 24, Ms. Theresa Richard asked if she could at least pay for the copies of the public records she had requested, Deputy Smith told her that the records were private and she eould not have them, 2s. The following day, the clerk of court posted signs immediately banning cameras and cell phones in the clerk of eour’s offices. 26. ‘This incident directly violates the duty to provide public access to records and the public right to document matters of a public interest. 21. ‘Additionally, Petitioner Theresa Richard was wrongfully detained for an unnecessary ‘amount of time and was frightened and emotionally distressed ftom the experience. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Theresa Richard and Mitchel Richard, pray that this petition bbe filed and Defendants, Acadia Parish Clerk of Court, Deputy Smith, and the Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office be duly cited and served with a copy of same and, after legal delays and due proceedings are had, there be judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against said Defendants for a full and true sum of an amount reasonable in the premises to be proven at a trial on the merits in this ‘matter, together with legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid, and for all costs of these proceedings and all other just and equitable relief. Respectfully submitted: L. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P.L.C. 605 West Congress Street Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 Telephone: (337) 2: Facsimile: (337) 23: fA. L. HARB (36105) Attorneys for Plaintiff’ EXHIBIT < BwPLEASE SERVE: ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT Through the Parish Clerk of Court: Robert T. Barousse 500 North Parkerson Ave. Crowley, La 70526 ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE 1037 Capitol Ave Crowley, LA 70526 EXHIBITTHERESA RICHARD and DOCKET NO: 2016-10111 G MITCHEL RICHARD VERSUS 18™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his PARISH OF ACADIA Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE STATE OF LOUISIANA -.). MOTION FOR RECUSATION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM. NOW, INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiffs, THERESA RICHARD and MITCHELL RICHARD, who respectfully represents the following: 1 A hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Deputy Smith and Acadia Parish Sheriff"s Office, is set for hearing on March 14, 2017. Be A significant issue that will likely determine the outcome of whether summary judgment is granted or not involves a determination of the constitutionality of the en bane Order dated January 15, 2015 issued by this Honorable Court. EA Plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully arrested at the Acadia Parish Clerk of Court's office pursuant to the aforesaid Order issued by this Honorable Court, attached as Exhibit A, which bans cellphones ftom 15" Judicial District courthouses. 4. Plaintiff contends that the aforesaid Order is not applicable to the Clerk of Court's office and, if itis intended to apply thereto, is overreaching and overbroad, Further, Plaintiff contends that said Order does not provide detention/arrest as a remedy if an individual was to bring a celiphone into the Clerk of Court's office. 5. In support of Plaintiffs’ aforesaid contentions, Plaintiffs reference the Louisiana Attorney General’s Opinion 15-0027 (attached as Exhibit B), which addresses this Honorable Court's on EXHIBIT bane Order and reads, in pertinent part, as follows:‘On more than one occasion our office has addressed the issue of courthouse security and generally opined that security provided in the courthouse is the responsibility of the parish governing authority. See La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos. 12-0187 and 92-742. Therefore, in accord with the prior opinions of this office, it is the opinion of this office that the Police Jury bears the general responsibility for providing security at the Courthouse and has the general authority to establish the appropriate security guidelines and procedures at the Courthouse. This would include the general authority to establish security procedures in courtrooms, judicial offices, and hallways of the Courthouse, as well as the general authority to establish procedures for cell phone use at the Courthouse, Although it is the opinion of this office that the Police Jury has the general authority to establish the appropriate security guidelines and procedures at the Courthouse, we are also of the opinion that a district judge has the authority to regulate cell phone use in hivher courtroom and judicial offices, as well as the general authority to establish guidelines and procedures conceming courtroom behavior and decorum.” 6. Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Art. 151, a judge of any court shall be recused when she is a witness in the cause or is interested in the cause or its outcome to such an extent that she would be unable to conduct fair and impartial proceedings, te Respectfully, and out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiff contends that any 15" Judicial District Court judge may be a witness to this case and also is interested in the outcome of said issue to such an extent that it may affect the outcome of this case. 8. Out of an abundance of caution, itis extremely important to note that Plaintiff is in no way accusing any member of this Honorable Court of any wrongdoing; Plaintiff simply finds that a reousation is in the best interest of all involved in order to eliminate any possible appearances of impropriety. Respectfully submitted: L. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P.L.C. 605 West Congress Street Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 ‘Telephone: (337) 234-7573 Facsimile: (337) 233-3890 L, CLAYTON BURGESS (22979) ISAAC E. KHALID (32076) SEAN MCALLISTER (35900) Attomeys for PlaintiffCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing has this date been forwarded to all known counsel of record by facsimile, e-mail and/or by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed, Lafayette, Louisiana, this 3rd day of March, 2017. tan Wa SEAN MCALLISTER EXHIBIT oS aTHERESA RICHARD and DOCKET NO: 2016-10111 G MITCHEL RICHARD VERSUS 15™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his PARISH OF ACADIA Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH. SHERIFY’S OFFICE STATE OF LOUISIANA ORDER Considering the foregoing: ITIS ORDERED that the district judges of the 15" Judicial District Court agree to recuse themselves from the above-captioned matter and an ad hoc judge from an adjoining district will ‘be formally assigned to said matter going forward. CROWLEY, LA, this day of, 2017. JUDGE, {5 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT‘Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2:47:53 PM Central Daylight Time Subject: FW: Theresa and Mitchel Richard vs. Acadia Parish Clerk of Court, et al - Doc. #201610111 Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 1:21:28 PM Central Daylight Time From: Office Manager To: Sean McAllister (0n 3/13/17, 1:42 PM, "L. Clayton Burgess" wrote: 4 i i From: Sy Savoy Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:11:55 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada) To: L Clayton Burgess; Edward Barousse; rabalzis@bornewilkes com; } sstefanski@eslawfirm.com Subject: Theresa and Mitchel Richard vs. Acadia Parish Clerk of Court, et al-Doc. #2016101 Dear Counsel: 5 This matter is set for hearing on the 14th day of March, 2017. A "Motion || for Recusation * was filed by plaintiffs. As the Motion seeks to recuse i all judges of the 15th JDC, the motion was presented to the Chief Judge {last week. Judge Hulin can hear argument on this motion on the 14th. {f She does not intend to rule from the bench tomorrow, All other motions | will need to be reset until a ruling is issued on the "Motion for | Recusation? Ifyou would like to reset all motions, please letime know. | can provide you with court dates. Otherwise, she will hear the motion to recuse tomorrow. Sincerely, Sy E. Savoy Staff Attorney, Division G Honorable Laurie A. Hulin 100 N. State St, Ste. 210 ‘Abbeville, LA 70510 Ph: (337) 898-4315 Fax: (337) 893-9609 hhulinlawclerk@icould.com EXHIBIT e‘Subject: FW: Theresa and Mitchel Richard vs, Acadia Parish Clerk of Court, et al - Doc. #201610111 Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:01:00 PM Central Daylight Time From: _ L. Clayton Burgess To: Matthew Thomassee From: Sy Savoy Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 12:00:45 PM (UTC-06:00} Central Time (US & Canada) To: L. Clayton Burgess; Edward Barousse; sstefanskit@eszlawfirm.com: rabalais@bornewilkes.com ‘Subject: Theresa and Mitchel Richard vs. Acadia Parish Clerk of Court, et al - Doc. #201610111 Dear Counsel: Judge Hulin has issued her ruling denying the Motion for Recusation. Written reasons for ruling have been filed with the Acadia Parish Clerk of Court. Therefore the remaining issues will be heard on March 20th as discussed in court. ‘Mr. Burgess, should you wish to proceed with the telephone conference please reply to this email and twill forward to you Judge Hutin’s. number for the conference. Thanks, SVE. Savoy Staff Attorney, Division @ Honorable Laurie A. Hulin 100 N State St, Ste. 210 Abbeville, LA 70510 Ph: (337) 898-4315 Fax: (337) 893-9609 bulinlawelerki@icould.com Page 1 oft EXHIBIT -THERESA RICHARD and DOCKET NO: 2016-10111 6 MITCHEL RICHARD VERSUS 15™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his PARISH OF ACADIA Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE STATE OF LOUISIANA. eee NOTICE OF INTENTON TO APPLY FOR EMERGENCY WRITS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION see TO: Honorable Laurie Hulin Division G, 15" JDC, Acadia Parish 100 North State Street, Ste. 210 Abbeville, LA 70510 FH. Edward Barousse Borne, Wilkes & Rabalais, L-L.C. 337-232-1604 Ext. 224 P.O. Box 4305 Lafayette, LA 70502-4305 Steven A. Stefamski Edwards, Stefanski & Zaunbrecher 125 B. Hutchinson Ave. Crowley, LA 70526 In accordance with Rule 4, Section 2, Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal, you are hereby notified of the intention of THERESA RICHARD and MITCHELL RICHARD, to apply to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, for Emergency Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition from the rulings of the 15" Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia, for which a written ruling denying the plaintiffs Motion for Recusation on March 15, 2017 without a hearing as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure Article 154. Further the Court has expressed intent to move forward with hearing the plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial and defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on March 20, 2017. All briefs have been timely filed with regards to these hearings and plaintiéis do not seek this writ for any additional time to brief those matters. Additionally, presently there is no trial date in the matter. Respectfully submitted: LL. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P.L.C. 605 West Congress Strect Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 EXHIBIT Telephone: (337) 234-7573 Facsimile: (337) 233-3890 BR‘ALLISTER (35900) for Plaintiff CERTIEICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing has this date been forwarded to all known counsel of recofd by facsimile, e-mail and/or by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed. Lafayette, Louisiana, this 15" day of 017. CLAYTON PORGESS, APLC.‘THERESA RICHARD and DOCKET NO: 2016-10111 G MITCHEL RICHARD VERSUS 15™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in-his PARISH OF ACADIA Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE STATE OF LOUISIANA MOTION TO STAY ALL, PROCEEDINGS WITH EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION On motion of the plaintiffs, THERESA RICHARD and MITCHELL RICHARD, appearing herein through undersigned counsel, and on suggesting to the Court that: at This Honorable Court issued a written ruling denying the plaintiffs Motion for Recusation on March 15, 2017 without a hearing as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure Article 154, 2 ‘The Court has expressed intent to move forward with hearing the plaintiff's Motion for a ‘New Trial and defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on March 20, 2017 (See Exhibit A). 3. ‘The plaintiffs have not yet had an opportunity to obtain and review the written reasons for ruling at this time. 4. ‘Nor has the plaintiff received formal notice of the Judgment. THEREFORE, in the interest of Justice, we feel it is appropriate for all proceedings to be stayed to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to file their writ with the 3" Circuit and allowing time for the writ to be judicially decided. Respectfully submitted: L. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P.L.C. 605 West Congress Street Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 EXHIBIT Facile: O37)2553800 BL. CLAYTON BURGESS (22979) ISAAC E. KHALID (32076) SEAN MCALLISTER (35900) Attomeys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing has this date been forwarded to all known counsel of record by facsimile, e-mail and/or by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed. Lafayette, Louisiana, this 15° day of L. CLAYTON BURGESS, AP.L.C. EXHIBITTHERESA RICHARD and DOCKET NO: 2016-10111 G MITCHEL RICHARD VERSUS 15™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his PARISH OF ACADIA ‘Official eapacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE STATE OF LOUISIANA ORDER CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING Motion to Stay; IT IS ORDERED that this matter be stayed. Crowley, Louisiana, this day of March, 2017. JUDGE EXHIBIT G ci?‘THERESA RICHARD and DOCKET NO: 2016-10111 G MITCHEL RICHARD ‘VERSUS 15" JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individuafly and in his PARISH OF ACADIA Official capacity as an Acadia Parish Sheriff's Deputy, and the ACADIA PARISH ‘SHERIFE’S OFFICE STATE OF LOUISIANA MOTION AND ORDER FIXING TIME FOR FILING EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR WRITS CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION On motion of the plaintiffs, THERESA RICHARD and MITCHELL RICHARD, appearing herein through undersigned counsel, and on suggesting to the Court that: fe ‘THERESA RICHARD and MITCHELL RICHARD intend to apply to the Court of, “Appeal, Third Circuit, for Emergency Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus and Probibition in the above entitle matter and numbered cause. 2. It is necessary that this Honorable Court fix a reasonable time in which THERESA RICHARD and MITCHELL RICHARD may file for said application to the Third Circuit of Appeal of Louisiana. ‘This Honorable Court a written'ruling denying the plaintiffs Motion for Recusation on ‘March 15, 2017 without a hearing as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure Article 154. Further, the Court has expressed intent to move forward with hearing the plaintiff's Motion for a ‘New Trial and defendants Motion for Summary Judgment om March 20, 2017. All briefs have been timely filed with regards to these hearings and plaintiff’s do not seek this writ for any additional time to brief those matters. Additionally, presently there is no trial date in the matter. 4. Movers respectfully request thatthe return date be set thirty (30) days from the date this Honorable Court ruled on the Motions. This would allow for the retum to be set no later than April 14, 20) EXHIBIT G BGIT 18 ORDERED that plaintiffs application for Emergency Writ of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition in the above titled and numbered cause be filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana, on or before the day of March, 2017. JUDGE Respectfully submitted: L. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P.L.C. 605 West Congress Street Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 Telephone: (337) 234-7573 Facsimile: (337) 233-3890 BURGESS (22979) (32076) “ALLISTER (35900) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing has this date been forwarded to all known counsel of record by facsimile, e-mail and/or by depositing a copy of ‘same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed. Lafayette, Louisiana, this 15" day of March, 2017. L. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P-L.C. EXHIBITDOCKET NO: 2016-10111 G 15™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ACADIA PARISH CLERK OF COURT, DEPUTY SMITH, individually and in his PARISH OF ACADIA Official capacity as an Acadia Parish SherifPs ;,and the ACADIA PARISH Depaty, SHERIFF'S OFFICE STATE OF LOUISTANA ORDER Dene. District Court agree to recuse ‘Considering the foregoing: IL IS ORDERED that the district judges of the 15. ed an ad hoe judge from an adjoining district will ‘themselves from the above-captioned ee FE JUDGE, 15™* JUDICIAL SRT COURT Curie h Rhy, LES aff. €T Bu con Houo EXHIBIT 4‘THERESA RICHARD 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ‘MITCHELL RICHARD ‘VERSUS DOCKET NUMBER: 2016-10111 G ACADIA PARIS CLERK OF COURT, _—_ACADIA PARISH, LOUISIANA DEPUTY SMITH, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND ‘ACADIA PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE REASONS FOR RULING ‘on March 12,2017, the plan Bed motion fo eewsation moving to eewse al oft {nde presiding in ho Fisenth Joico Distrot Court. He argues hat ny one of these odes may be called sta witest ad also have an atest inthe euoome ofthe cas so that hey Would ‘tbe set be and partial. The motion i ot based on sny newly discovered fats. ‘Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 154 provides that motion to recuse judge stall be filed prior trial ar hearing od sal ster valid ground If tho motion is timely filed ad sats a valid ground for recusa, then the judge shal ther reese hint ert motion to nother judge orto a jade a oe Soaring, Whena motion to recuse f untimely fled ot Jacks a valid ground for roqukton, the maton can he denied without referring to another nds ‘or bearing, David v, Davi, 157 So.3d 1164, 2014-999 (La. App. 3 Ch. 24/15); Mill, Limoges, 923 80.24 906, 2005-532 (La. App.3 Cit 3/00 Love v. Boden, 478 20.24 1008 (La ‘App. 3. Ck. 1985). “The petition for damages ia this cso was fled on Februry 8, 2016, An exception of prescription was bead inthis ca on November 21,2016, end th cout sled from the bench “Te writen Judgment was sgned on Decent 20, 2016, This udguent demise clas 3510 cove of the defindant ia the case, A motion for now trl on this exception was fed on Janay 6, 2017, mda pending, Therefor, the motion fo ecase shoald have been filed prorto the heating snd jodgmnon rendered on the exception in his case, This court finds plaatfs motion to recuse ‘untimely. Therefore, the mation i denied. ‘This cout ao fis tose any valid ground connie inthe motion. The motion st that ll of he judge are potent witness and ive an inte in the ateome of tho case dus toa posse connotes with an ex ban one, “A mation to recuse ial judge mut be bated on more than mere coocnsonry allegations.” Sst v, Lakefly, 363 Sad 65, 663. La, 1978), Pim mesions vague, Th motion fas w allege or ate any fac doa ht wouk! EXHIBIT a_eqie this court to fir the motion for hearing. Hef to state val ground fo rca ‘Therefie, he motion denied. ‘The legal atority cod by pki tm bis nation proves fo she reusaton of an Individual presiding judge. 1: doce xt provide for enon bane ronal, This court qustions hatha thei proedal mecbinn wy rcie al oth alge of Fon alicia Dict lay way of on motion fil in one divin. 1 seems though he Code provides mechanism forth individual judge to determine whter recut hia or banal ony. Plains tan rocedaraliy improper and lacks hort. Three the maton denied. 118 HEARBY ORDERED, ADIUDGHD AND DECREED, ht puis Motion for Rocio i deni. “THUS DONE AND SIGNED on ti he 15th day of March, 7017, in Acadia Pais, = 2 /Le Tare A Hla District Judge, Division G Fiftoath Judicil District of Louisiana Ceowiey, Louisiona, PLEASE NOTICE ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD EXHIBIT TO 2T Wd ST WU Lie vUAaTAON