Case Name: Gerald James BORDELON v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1981-05-18
Citations: 398 So. 2d 1103
Docket Number: No. 80-C-2800
Parties: Gerald James BORDELON v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
Judges: WATSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 398
Pages: 1103–1108

Head Matter:
Gerald James BORDELON v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
No. 80-C-2800.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 18, 1981.
Kathleen Stewart Richey, of Richey & Price, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-relator.
S. Dwayne Broussard, Carmack M. Black-mon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-respondents.
David R. Poynter, Poynter & Speer, Baton Rouge, Sp. Counsel.

Opinion:
LEMMON, Justice.
We granted certiorari to review a district court's ruling that a commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court has the authority to conduct a hearing on plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition to the district judge. We now affirm the ruling.
Plaintiff initiated the underlying litigation with a petition that claimed damages from the Department of Corrections because of mistreatment he received while committed to Louisiana Training Institute in East Baton Rouge Parish. The petition included a rule for injunctive relief. The district judge, to whom the case was allotted, scheduled a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction and referred the case to a commissioner to conduct the hearing.
During the hearing plaintiff questioned the commissioner's authority to conduct the hearing and to make proposed factual findings and recommendations. The commissioner halted the hearing and submitted a report to the district judge on the issue of the commissioner's authority, recommending that his authority be confirmed. The district judge ruled that the commissioner could be designated to "hear and make recommendations not only on preliminary injunctions but on 'any matter or motion pending before the court' " pursuant to R.S. 13:713. Plaintiff then applied for supervisory writs to the court of appeal, which denied the application on the basis that there was no error in the district judge's reasons and ruling. We granted certiorari. 394 So.2d 1245.
R.S. 13:711, adopted by Act No. 62 of 1979, created the offices of two commissioners of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. The commissioners may perform duties assigned to them by the district judges which are consistent with the constitution and laws of the state. R.S. 13:713 A. In performing these duties, commissioners have all the powers of a district judge, except adjudicatory powers. R.S. 13:713 B. Moreover, R.S. 13:713 C provides:
"In furtherance of the above, a commissioner may be designated and assigned to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except motions for injunctive relief and temporary restraining orders in civil matters and preliminary hearings, motions for discovery, motions to suppress, and motions to quash in criminal matters, or any motion or exception which adjudicates any question of law or fact with regard to that matter. A commissioner may be designated to conduct hearings, including evi-dentiary hearings, and to submit to the judge of the appropriate division, proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition thereof of any matter or motion pending before the court, or any application for post trial relief made therein. In such cases, the commissioner shall file his proposed findings and recommendations with the court, and a copy shall forthwith be mailed, postage prepaid, to all parties or their counsel of record. Any party, within ten days after transmittal of such copy, may traverse such findings or recommendations in writing in such manner as shall be specified by the rules of the district court. The judge of the appropriate division shall make a de novo determination of any findings or recommendations to which objection is made. The judge may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings or recommendations made by the commissioner and also may receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the commissioner with instructions."
Thus, a commissioner, pursuant to the second sentence of subsection C, may conduct hearings and submit proposed findings of facts and recommendations for disposition on any matter or motion pending before the court. Additionally, a commissioner, pursuant to the first sentence of subsection C, may conduct hearings and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court with certain enumerated exceptions, one of the exceptions being motions for injunctive relief.
We interpret the two provisions, read together, as authorizing commissioners to conduct hearings on any motions, including motions for injunctive relief, and to submit proposed factual findings and recommendations, while prohibiting commissioners from determining or deciding certain pretrial motions. This interpretation accords with the remainder of the legislative scheme that outlines the role of commissioners. After the findings and recommendations are submitted by the commissioner and the parties are afforded an opportunity to traverse in writing, the district judge makes a de novo determination of any disputed finding or recommendation and accepts, rejects or modifies the commissioner's report in whole or in part. If necessary, the judge can receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the commissioner with instructions. The overall scheme clearly reserves all adjudicatory power to the district judge, although the commissioner may determine some pretrial motions which are not disposi-tive of the case.
We therefore conclude that pursuant to R.S. 13:713 C a commissioner may be designated to conduct a hearing on a motion for injunctive relief and to submit to the district judge proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition, but may not be designated to decide the motion.
Plaintiff further contends that R.S. 13:713, if interpreted in this manner, unconstitutionally denies his "access to a constitutionally sanctioned court". In this respect plaintiff argues that La.Const. Art. V, § 1 (1974) vests the judicial power in those courts created by the constitution.
Certain judicial power may be delegated without any abdication of the judge's fundamental responsibility for deciding cases. Delegation of power to conduct evi-dentiary hearings and to prepare proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition based on the evidence and the arguments is not inconsistent with the constitution and laws which vest the judicial power in judges of enumerated courts, as long as the judges retain the responsibility for making ultimate decisions in the case. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). Under R.S. 13:713, as under the Federal Magistrates Act attacked in the Mathews case, the authority and responsibility to make the final determination remains with the district judge. The fundamental responsibility of the judge to make the final determination, after the commissioner conducts a hearing and submits proposed findings and recommendations, is insured by the requirement of a de novo determination of disputed findings or recommendations. Compare United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980).
We conclude that this plaintiffs constitutional due process is adequately protected by the procedure outlined in R.S. 13:713, in which the trial judge makes a de novo determination of disputed findings or recommendations and may accept, reject, or modify those findings or recommendations or require additional evidence. We accordingly reject plaintiff's contentions that his constitutional rights are impaired by the designation of a commissioner to conduct a hearing and to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition.
The ruling of the district court is affirmed.
WATSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
. Perhaps there are other pretrial motions which involve such ultimate determinations that a commissioner cannot properly determine them. That issue is not presented in this case.
. The Mathews decision considered the Federal Magistrates Act, which is very similar (in all respects essential to this case) to R.S. 13:711-713.
.The divided court in the Raddatz case only disagreed on the issue of whether the district judge in the de novo determination must hear witnesses when the dispositive issue in a particular case turns on credibility.