Walter v. City of New Orleans
| Docket Number | Civil Action 23-4352 |
| Decision Date | 09 January 2026 |
| Citation | Walter v. City of New OrleansCivil Action 23-4352 (E.D. La. Jan 092026) |
| Parties | SULLIVAN WALTERPlaintiff v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANSET AL.Defendants |
| Writing for the Court | SUSIE MORGANUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
1
SULLIVAN WALTERPlaintiff
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANSET AL.Defendants
United States District CourtE.D. Louisiana
January 92026
SECTION: “E” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
SUSIE MORGANUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is DefendantJason Williams (“Williams”)in his official capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney (“OPDA”),[1] who filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[2] PlaintiffSullivan Walteropposes the motion.[3] Defendant filed a reply.[4] Plaintiff also filed three notices of supplemental authority,[5] and Williams filed a response.[6]
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the conviction and incarceration of Plaintiff Sullivan Walter.[7] On May 101986L.S. was sexually assaulted in her home.[8] Immediately after the assaultL.S. called the police and was taken to the hospitalwhere a resident physician performed an examination and collected several swabs to preserve the evidence in a rape
kit.[9] That nightL.S. provided a description of the perpetrator to the police.[10] She described the perpetrator “as a Black man who was ‘5'11slender18-20 years oldwith thick eyebrowsjerri curl ringlets[and who was] wearing a backwards baseball hat.'”[11]L.S. stated that the man's baseball hat was blue and he wore a face covering during the assaultbut that the face covering dropped several times during the assault.[12] A sketch artist prepared a composite drawing of the perpetrator.[13]
Plaintiff alleges that serological testing “is used to determine whether a person's body secretes ABO blood group antigens into their bodily fluidssuch as salivasweatand semen.”[14] Persons who secrete blood group antigens are known as “secretors,” while those who do not are referred to as “non-secretors.”[15] A medical technologist at the Orleans Parish Coroner's Office performed serological testing on the vaginal swabs recovered from L.S.[16] The testing revealed that the seminal fluid came from a perpetrator who was a non-secretor.[17] SeparatelyDetective O'Neala criminalist in the New Orleans Police Crime Lab at the time,[18] serologically tested a semen sample retrieved from L.S.'s shorts.[19]This testing also revealed the perpetrator was a non-secretor.[20]
On June 231986Plaintiff-who was 17of an average buildhad cropped natural
hairsparse eyebrowsand was without facial hair at the time-was arrested for an unrelated simple burglary.[21] Plaintiff was wearing a blue hat when he was arrested.[22] The police identified him as a potential match to the composite drawing.[23] On June 261986the police presented L.S. with a photo lineup of seven individual photographsone of which was a photo of Plaintiff wearing a hat.[24] Plaintiff was the only man in the photo lineup who was wearing a hat.[25] “L.S. made a cross-racial identification and incorrectly identified Mr. Walter as the perpetrator.”[26]
On November 131986Plaintiff was charged with two counts of aggravated crimes against natureone count of aggravated rapeand one count of aggravated burglary.[27] On December 11986he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.[28] The next dayDecember 21986following a three-hour triala twelve-member jury found Plaintiff guilty on all counts.[29] At the time of the trialPlaintiff's status as a “secretor” or “non-secretor” was not known.[30] Plaintiff underwent serological testing in January 1988a little over a year after the trial.[31]
Plaintiff alleges thatwhen they were preparing his defensehe and his counsel were unaware of the serological testing that had been performed.[32] Plaintiff alleges that “neither [he] nor his attorney received the lab report before the morning of trial. As a
resultthis evidence was unusable at trialand Mr. Walter was deprived of an opportunity to obtain and present any evidence regarding his own secretor status or the implication of his secretor status.”[33]
At trialL.S. testified and identified Plaintiff as the perpetrator.[34] Detective O'Neal testified that the police serology test of the seminal fluid performed by him revealed the perpetrator was a non-secretorbut he did not explain-and was not asked to explain-the significance of this finding:
“In this particular caseexamination of seminal fluid revealed no secretor activity which would indicate that the individual who left seminal fluid stains was a non-secretor. In other wordsthey did not secrete their blood type.”[35]
Plaintiff alleges that O'Neal confirmed the perpetrator was a non-secretor during his cross-examinationtestifying:
“Q. Now-basicallyall you had was-you examined the shorts and the blouse and found that the shorts contained seminal fluidand the blouse did notis that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. That's all your analysis showed?
A. That's correct.
Q. You weren't able to establish a blood type?
A. Nosir. The stain that was tested for secretor activity reflected that there was no secretor activity.”[36]
The jury found Plaintiff guilty on all counts.[37] Plaintiff was sentenced to 35 years in
prison.[38]
Plaintiff appealed his convictionarguing the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office (“OPDA”) violated his constitutional due process rights and violated its discovery duties when it withheld the serological testing reports until the day of trial.[39] In October 1987the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appealafter finding the OPDA violated its discovery dutiesremanded the case to the trial court to allow Plaintiff to present his Brady[40] claims.[41] On January 131988additional serological testing was conductedwhich revealed that Plaintiff was a secretor and secreted Blood Type B antigens.[42] Plaintiff alleges this testing confirmed that Plaintiff could not have been the perpetrator of the crimes against L.S.[43]
Plaintiff moved for a new trial.[44] On April 291988the criminal district court held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a new trial.[45] Plaintiff alleges the prosecution's only witness at the hearing was O'Neal.[46] Plaintiff alleges that
prior to . . . [O'Neal's] testimonyone or more agents of the OPDA directed Defendant O'Neal to lie about the secretor status testing and significance. In the OPDA's wordsthe OPDA “asked its criminalist [O'Neal] to come in and ‘fudge'” his testimony. “And that's what he did.”[47]
Plaintiff alleges the OPDA directed Detective O'Neal to lie about the secretor status testing and its significance and “to fudge” his testimony.[48] In the alternativePlaintiff alleges that Detective O'Neal intentionally falsified his testimony on his ownwithout the
prosecutors' knowledgeand concealed from the OPDA the fact that he had given false testimony.[49]
At the hearing on the motion for a new trialDetective O'Neal testified that the serological testing did not necessarily exclude Mr. Walter as a potential perpetrator.[50]Detective O'Neal also testified that the serological testing of the rape kit swabs did not conclusively establish whether or not the perpetrator was a secretor.[51] Plaintiff alleges this testimony was false and directly contradicted Detective O'Neal's testimony at the first trial.[52]
The state district court denied Plaintiff's motion for a new trial.[53] Plaintiff alleges that O'Neal's testimony was the “sole basis for the criminal district court to deny [Plaintiff's] motion for a new trial,” as no other witness testified at the hearing.[54] Plaintiff appealedand the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial.[55]
In October 2021the Innocence Project New Orleans (“IPNO”) took on Plaintiff's case.[56] The IPNO contacted the Civil Rights Division of the OPDAwhich began conducting its own investigation into Plaintiff's case.[57] On August 232022attorneys from the OPDA and the IPNO filed a “Joint Agreement and Motion to Vacate” Plaintiff's
conviction.[58] At the motion hearing on August 252022the OPDA “stated that ‘the serology evidence' disclosed on the morning of Mr. Walter's trial ‘show[ed] that' Mr. Walter ‘did not commit the crime.'”[59] After the hearinga criminal district court judge vacated Plaintiff's conviction and ordered his release from prison.[60]
Plaintiff filed the instant civil lawsuitseeking to recover compensatory damagespunitive damagesand an award of costs and attorneys' fees for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitutionthe Louisiana Constitutionand other Louisiana state law.[61] Plaintiff sought to hold Williamsthe Cityand O'Neal liable for violations of his civil rightswhich resulted in his wrongful incarceration for over 35 years.[62] Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by “fabricating evidence; suppressing exculpatory evidence; suborning and committing perjury; and creating and maintaining unlawful policiescustomsand practices that caused the wrongful and unconstitutional acts . . . .”[63]
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:
Every person whounder color of any statuteordinance, regulationcustomor usageof any State . . . subjectsor causes to be subjectedany citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rightsprivilegesor immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsshall be liable to the party injured in an action at lawsuit in equityor other proper proceeding for redress . . . .[64]
This statute provides a remedy against “every person,” who under color of state lawdeprives another of any rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AIYour Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AIYour Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AIYour Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AIYour Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AIYour Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
