Court Opinion

ID: 9395958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 22:05:57.007401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.937594
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                 STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                   COURT OF APPEAL

                                     FIRST CIRCUIT

                                       2022 CA 073 5

                               DERRICK JEROME ALLEN

                                         VERSUS

               SHIRLEY MAE MILES BROWN, ERIC GERARD BROWN,
 V         TIA SYNETTE BROWN BONDS, JOY LARISSA BROWN WHITE

                                                  Judgment Rendered:     MAY 18 2023
fcc j * *

                       On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court
                         In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                                     State of Louisiana
                                  Trial Court No. C706049

                       Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding

     Derrick Jerome Allen                        In Proper Person
     St. Gabriel, Louisiana

     Morgan Field                                Attorney for Defendants/Appellees,
     Baton Rouge, Louisiana                      Shirley Mae Miles Brown, Eric
                                                 Gerard   Brown, Tia     Synette   Brown

                                                 Bonds, Joy Larissa Brown White

                    BEFORE:    WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
PENZATO, J.

       Plaintiff, Derrick Jerome Allen, an inmate housed at the Elayn Hunt

Correctional       Center,    appeals    the   dismissal    of his    petition   for   damages        as

prescribed.   For the following reasons, we affirm.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       On March 24, 2021, Mr. Allen filed the instant " Petition for Damages/

Wrongful Death and Survival Actions,"               naming Shirley Mae Miles Brown, Eric

Gerard Brown, Tia Synette Brown Bonds,                     and Joy Larissa Brown White as

defendants. In his petition, Mr. Allen asserted that his father, Hezekiah Brown, Jr.,

suffered a fatal heart attack and died on March 22, 2020. Mr. Allen alleged that the

defendants caused or contributed to Mr. Brown' s death.

       In   response,     the defendants filed          a peremptory       exception raising the

objection of prescription, noting therein that Mr. Brown died on March 22, 2020,

but Mr. Allen did not file his petition until March 24, 2021. 1                   At a hearing on

November 23, 2021, the trial court granted the exception raising the objection of

prescription and dismissed Mr. Allen' s lawsuit. The trial court signed a judgment

in accordance with its ruling on December 29, 2021. Mr. Allen appealed. 2

1 The defendants also filed exceptions raising the objections of no right of action and lis pendens.
Because the trial court granted the exception raising the objection of prescription, it did not
address the exceptions raising the objections of no right of action and lis pendens at the
November 23, 2021 hearing. Silence in a judgment of the trial court as to any issue, claim or
demand placed before the court is deemed a rejection of the claim and the relief sought is
presumed to be denied.       Schoolhouse, Inc. v. Fanguy, 2010- 2238 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 10/ 11),    69
So. 3d 658, 664.

Z On November 29, 2021, Mr. Allen filed a motion requesting a rehearing and/ or reconsideration
of the judgment dismissing his lawsuit as prescribed, which was denied on December 1, 2021.
Mr. Allen then filed a petition for appeal on December 6, 2021, prior to the December 29, 2021
signing of the judgment on the defendants' exception. To the extent that a motion for appeal is
premature, any defect arising from a premature motion for appeal is cured once a final judgment
has been signed.    See Overmyer v_ Traylor, 475 So. 2d 1094, 1094- 95 ( La. 1985) (     per curiam);

Green v. Patient Compensation Fund Oversight Board, 2021- 1310 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 5/ 22),          344
So. 3d 161, 165 n. 5; see also La. C. C. P. arts. 1911, 1915, and 1918.

                                                    2
                            MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

        As a preliminary matter, we address the motion to dismiss appeal filed by

Shirley Mae Miles Brown on November 1,                  2022.    On December 22, 2022, Ms.

Brown' s motion was referred to this panel, as the panel to which the appeal was

assigned.

        After the record was lodged, this court issued a briefing schedule requiring

Mr. Allen to file his brief on or before August 7, 2022. Because no brief was filed

by that deadline, this court issued a Notice of Abandonment (" NOA") noting that

the appeal would be dismissed if Mr. Allen did not file his brief by September 14,

2022.

        Prior to the expiration of the NOA deadline, this court, on motion of Mr.

Allen, granted Mr. Allen an extension of his briefing deadline, requiring that he file

his brief " on or before October 13, 2022, or his appeal shall be dismissed as

abandoned."       On October 26, 2022, Mr. Allen requested another extension.                        On

November 1,     2022, this court granted the extension and ordered Mr. Allen to file

his brief on or before November 14, 2022.              Mr. Allen subsequently filed his brief

on November 10, 2022.

        At the relevant time, Rule 2- 8. 6 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, did

not   provide   for an extension for an appellant to                  file     a brief beyond the

abandonment period.'        However, in Succession ofBellande, 2015- 1427 ( La. App. 1

Cir. 4115116), 2016 WL 1546132, * 1 (           unpublished), under similar circumstances,

this court did not dismiss an appeal where we had granted an extension of the

briefing schedule past the NOA deadline, reasoning as follows:

         W] hile technically Rule 2- 8. 6 of the Uniform Rules,                     Courts    of

 Prior to January 1, 2023, Rule 2- 8. 6 provided, in pertinent part, that "[   i] f an appellant does not
file a brief within 30 days after such notice [ of abandonment] is transmitted, the appeal shall be
dismissed as abandoned."  Rule 2- 8. 6 was amended May 2, 2022, with an effective date of
January 1, 2023, and now provides that "[ i] f an appellant does not file a brief within 30 days
alley such notice [ of abandonment] is transmitted, the appeal shall be subject to dismissal as
abandoned."

                                                  3
        Appeal, does not provide for an extension to file appellants' brief
        beyond the      abandonment     period,     it was granted by this court.
        Pursuant to La. C. C.P. art. 2164, the appellate court can render any
        judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record upon appeal.
        Under the unique facts of this case, we decline to dismiss the appeal.

        Considering the foregoing circumstances, and in light of Succession of

Bellande, we deny Ms. Brown' s motion to dismiss the appeal.

                              ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

        Mr. Allen submits four assignments of error:

        1.   Appellant will be denied a right to a proper judicial review on
        appeal being the appellate record is incomplete.

        2.   The trial court erred when it denied [ appellant' s] motion requesting
        a rehearing/ reconsideration.

        3.   The trial court erred when it disobeyed the La. Supreme Court' s
        memorandum suspending deadlines because of covid virus.

        4.   Trial court erred when it went against clearly established law by
        U.S. Supreme Court [ and] this court.

                              LAW AND DISCUSSION

Assignment of Error No. 1

        In his first assignment of error, Mr. Allen contends the appellate record is

incomplete.        On      September   19,   2022,    the   appellate       record   herein   was

supplemented        with    Mr.   Allen' s   motion     requesting      a     rehearing   and/ or

reconsideration of judgment, which was filed in the trial court on November 29,

2021,    along with an attachment to that motion entitled " Pre -Trial Inserts of

Defendant, Doug Welborn, Clerk of Court for East Baton Rouge Parish,"                     filed in

the matter of "Derrick Jerome Allen vs. Doug Welborn, Clerk of Court East Baton

Rouge Parish," case number 577, 205.

        As the appellate record is complete, this assignment of error has no merit.

Assignment of Error No. 4

        Finding the appellate record to be complete, we next address Mr. Allen' s

fourth assignment of error, wherein he argues that his petition for damages was

                                               12
timely filed by mail.

      Mr. Allen' s wrongful death and survival actions are delictual actions subject

to a prescriptive period of one year. See La. C. C. art. 3492.    Additionally, wrongful

death and survival actions prescribe one year from the death of the deceased who

dies due to the fault of another. La. C. C. art. 2315. 2 ( B) and 2315. 1 ( A).

      Ordinarily, the party urging prescription bears the burden of proof at trial of

the exception; however, if the petition is prescribed on its face, the burden shifts to

the plaintiff to show the action is not prescribed.        Quinn a Louisiana Citizens

Property Ins. Corp.,    2012- 0152 ( La. 11/ 2/ 12), 118 So. 3d 1011, 1017. When, as in

this case,   no evidence is introduced at the hearing to support or controvert the

exception raising the objection of prescription, the exception must be decided upon

facts alleged in the petition with all allegations accepted as true. See La. C. C. P, art.

931; Harris v Breaud, 2017- 0421 (     La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 27/ 18),   243 So. 3d 572, 578.

If no evidence is introduced to support or controvert the exception, the manifest

error standard of review does not apply, and the appellate court' s role is to

determine whether the trial court' s ruling was legally correct. Harris, 243 So. 3d at

578- 79.

       In his petition, Mr. Allen alleged that on March 22, 2020, his father, Mr.

Brown, drove by himself to a church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to do chores at

the church, suffered a fatal heart attack, and died.       The record reflects that Mr.

Allen' s petition was filed on March 24, 2021.         Because Mr. Allen' s petition is

prescribed on its face, the burden shifted to him to show that his wrongful death

and survival actions were not prescribed.

       At the hearing on the defendants' exception, Mr. Allen argued that he mailed

his petition on March 19, 2021. On appeal, Mr, Allen argues that we should follow

what he contends was our previous ruling in Allen v Hatch, 2005 CA 0673 (             La.

                                             5
App. 1 Cir. 6/ 21/ 06) ( unpublished).'

       Mr. Allen failed to introduce any evidence as to the date he mailed his

petition.    Moreover, this court has held that the "           mailbox rule"     pronounced in

Houston a Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 2382, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245

 1988),     does not apply to non -administrative, civil suits filed by prisoners.

Knockurn a Waguespack, 2012- 0277 (            La. App.     1 Cir. 1112/ 12),   111 So. 3d 370,

371- 72.

       Thus, the trial court was legally correct in concluding that Mr. Allen' s claims

were prescribed.     This assignment of error has no merit.

Assignment of Error No. 3

       In this assignment of error, Mr. Allen argues that the Louisiana Supreme

Court suspended all deadlines because of the Covid- 19 pandemic.

       On March 16, 2020, in response to the Covid- 19 pandemic, the governor

issued an emergency order suspending all legal deadlines.                 On June 9, 2020, the

legislature passed La. R.S.         9: 5828 through 5830 to approve and ratify the

governor' s suspension of prescriptive periods, and to provide for its applicability.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9: 5829 ( A) provides that:

       All prescriptions, including liberative, acquisitive, and the prescription
       of nonuse, abandonment periods, and all peremptive periods shall be
       subject to a limited suspension or extension during the time period of
       March 17, 2020, through July 5, 2020; however, the suspension or
       extension of these periods shall be limited and shall apply only if
       these periods would have otherwise expired during the time
       period of March 17, 2020, through July 5, 2020. The right to file a
       pleading or motion to enforce any right, claim, or action which would
       have expired during the time period of March 17, 2020, through July
       5, 2020, shall expire on July 6, 2020. ( Emphasis added.)

4 In Allen v_ Hatch, this court vacated a trial court judgment dismissing Mr. Robinson' s
defamation claims against the defendant and remanded the case because it was unclear whether a
motion to recuse filed by Mr. Robinson was denied prior to the rendition of the judgment.
Because we vacated the underlying judgment, we did not address Mr. Robinson' s assignment of
error regarding what he contended was a timely filed amended petition. In dicta contained in a
footnote, we indicated that while we made no determination as to whether Mr. Robinson stated a
cause of action in his amended petition, we noted that we were bound by the pronouncements of
the United States Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 2382,
 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 ( 1988), wherein the Court concluded that a prisoner' s pleadings are deemed
filed upon delivery of the document to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court.

                                                 rol
      Mr. Allen' s wrongful death and survival actions prescribed one year from the

death of his father, or March 22, 2021.      Thus, the emergency orders in response to

the Covid- 19 pandemic are not applicable to Mr. Allen' s claims.

      This assignment of error has no merit,

Assignment of Error No. 2

      In this assignment of error, Mr. Allen contends that the trial court erred in

denying his motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration without addressing any of

his claims and without reviewing the document attached to his motion, i.e.,            the

 Pre -Trial Inserts of Defendant, Doug Welborn,           Clerk of Court for East Baton

Rouge Parish."

      The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a motion to

reconsider with respect to any judgment, and such a motion is generally treated as

a motion for new trial.       Harris v Louisiana Department of Public Safety &

Corrections, 2019- 1657 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 813120),      310 So. 3d 211, 214. A trial court

has much discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for new trial;

however, the denial of a motion for new trial should not be reversed on appeal

unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Harrington a Board ofSupervisors of

Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2021--1527

 La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 29/ 22), 2022 WL 4587873, * 4, writ denied, 2022- 01621 ( La.

1/ 11/ 23), 352 So. 3d 985.

      In his motion for rehearing and/ or reconsideration, Mr. Allen argued that the

Clerk of Court for East Baton Rouge Parish "           has a very long history of holding

 his] pleading[ s]   and law -suits,   and filing said suits/pleadings late after the

 deadline],   or not filing such at all."   He contended that the " Pre -Trial Inserts of

Defendant,     Doug Welborn,      Clerk     of Court    for East Baton    Rouge   Parish"

documented such action.

       Mr. Allen has failed to provide any evidence that the Clerk of Court for East

                                              7
Baton Rouge Parish received his petition on or before March 22, 2021, and failed

to file it until March 24, 2021.    Thus, we find no abuse of the trial court' s vast

discretion in denying his motion for rehearing and/ or reconsideration without a

contradictory hearing. See Samuel v Harris, 2021- 1577 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 3122),

342 So. 3d 1009, 1012. This assignment of error has no merit.

                                    CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, we deny the motion to dismiss appeal filed by

Shirley Mae Miles Brown and maintain the appeal.         We affirm the December 29,

2021 judgment of the trial court sustaining the peremptory exception raising the

objection of prescription and dismissing with prejudice Derrick Jerome Allen' s

petition.   All costs of this appeal are assessed against Derrick Jerome Allen.

       MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

                                            M