Court Opinion

ID: 9841322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 22:05:12.173921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:31.748732
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                            STATE OF LOUISIANA

                              COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                               NO. 2023 CA 0306

                         WILBERT BRADLEY # 118934

                                    VERSUS

 LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

                               Judgment Rendered.    SEP 212023

                               Appealed from the
                           19th Judicial District Court
                    In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                               State of Louisiana
                           Case No. C709703, Sec. 25

             The Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding

Wilbert Bradley                            Plaintiff/Appellant
Angola, Louisiana                          Pro Se

Jonathan Vining                            Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                     Louisiana Department of Public
                                           Safety and Corrections

          BEFORE:      THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ.
  THERIOT, J.

           Wilbert Bradley appeals the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s ("                                   1911

 JDC") judgment rendered on December 28, 2022.
                                                                            For the following reasons, we
 affirm.

                              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

           Wilbert Bradley is an inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola,
 Louisiana.
                  Previously, on January 3, 2018, Bradley filed an administrative remedy
 procedure ("       ARP") ( LSP -2018- 0004) wherein he sought the restoration of good

 time'
          in part pursuant to Rivera v. State, 727 So.2d 609 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1998). 2
 The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" the Department")

 denied Bradley' s request on April 20, 2018, stating in pertinent part:
          After careful review of your offender record[,] it is noted that your
          record was reviewed on 08/ 09/ 1999 and your good time was restored
          in compliance with the Rivera Decision. Again on 12/ 02/ 2000 your
          record was reviewed and your good time was restored in compliance
          with the Cain Decision. At this time your Master Record is in
          compliance with all decisions regarding restoration of good time.

          Therefore, your request for Administrative Remedy is denied.
Bradley proceeded to the second step of the ARP process.                                   In June 2018, the

Department responded as follows:

          The first step response is determined to be clear and concise and has
          adequately addressed your issues.                     The section on the master prison
         record marked " RESTORATION"
                                                                is only good time restored per the
         Restoration Panel for being two years report free.                            The good time
         restored per the Rivera and Cain decisions was removed directly off
         your MS ON TOTAL FTE TO DATE: section. Your good time was
         restored during the appropriate time that these cases were relevant.
         Your time computation is considered correct and will not be amended
         in this instance.

The record contains no evidence of Bradley appealing the Department' s June 2018
second step response.

 Diminution of sentence for good behavior, as provided for in LSA-R.S. 15: 571. 3, is commonly referred to as
 good time."
               Englade v. Louisiana Dep' t ofCorr., 2021- 0132 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 30/21), 340 So.3d 952, 957, writ
denied, 2022- 00209 (La. 4/ 12/ 22), 336 So. 3d 82.

 Bradley references a second case, which he simply refers to as Cain. Bradley is presumably referring to Hills v.
Cain, 1999-2324 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 31/ 00), 764 So.2d 1048.

                                                          2
           Subsequently, on March 23, 2021, Bradley filed another ARP ( LSP -2021-

  0792) wherein he asserted the same claims that he asserted in his 2018 ARP.                                       On

 May 13, 2021, the Department responded, again stating that good time had already
 been restored to Bradley pursuant to the Rivera                                and Cain decisions.               The

 Department then referred Bradley to his 2018 ARP. Bradley proceeded to the

 second step of the ARP. In June 2021, the Department responded in pertinent part

 as follows:

          You have submitted a grievance requesting restoration of good time
          based on the Cain and Rivera decisions. This grievance is a copy of
          the grievance you filed in 2018 under LSP -2018- 0004. Your issues
          were addressed at that time and will not be addressed again.                                 Your
          request is denied.

          On July 16, 2021, Bradley filed a Petition for .Judicial Review with the 19th

 JDC, seeking judicial review of the Department' s denial of his 2021 ARP.                                     In the

 statement of his claim,                Bradley wrote that "[ t]he good time taken by the

 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTION was unlawfully
 done, [ and] should be restored to the Plaintiff."

          On     December         12,    2022,      the    Commissioner           of    the    19"     JDC ("     the

 Commissioner")           recommended that Bradley' s 2021 ARP be dismissed with

prejudice at Bradley' s cost due to his failure to state a cause of action for which
relief could be granted.'
                                     The Commissioner pointed out that Bradley' s 2021 ARP
addressed the exact same grievance as his 2018 ARP. The Commissioner further

noted that Bradley' s 2018 ARP had been denied on the basis that Bradley' s good
time had already been corrected in accordance with the Rivera and Cain decisions.
         Subsequently,          on      December          28,   2022,     the     19"     JDC        adopted      the

Commissioner' s written recommendations and dismissed Bradley' s 2021 ARP

  The office of the Commissioner of the 19th JDC was created by La. R.S. 13: 711 to hear and recommend
disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. The Commissioner' s
written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them.
Hakim- El-Mumit v. Stalder, 2003- 2549 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10129104), 897 So.2d 112, 113 n. 1.
  with prejudice for Petitioner' s failure to state a cause of action for which relief

 could be granted." This appeal followed.

        The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, set forth in La. R.S.
 15: 1171- 1179,
                   provides that the Department may adopt an ARP for receiving,
 hearing, and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by offenders

 against the state,      the governor, the Department or its employees. The adopted

 procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling the complaints and grievances to

 which they apply. La. R.S. 15: 1171;       see also Spikes v. Louisiana Dep' t of P. ub.
 Safety &    Corr., 2022- 0504 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 4/ 22), 354 So. 3d 84, 86- 87.   The

rules and procedures promulgated by the Department are set forth in LAC

22: I.325.
              Pursuant to these rules, offenders must exhaust a two-step ARP before
they can proceed with a suit in federal or state court. La. R.S. 15: 1176; LAC

22: I.325( F)( 3)( a)( viii); see also Spikes, 354 So.3d at 86- 87.

       An offender aggrieved by an adverse decision rendered pursuant to any ARP
can institute proceedings for judicial review by filing a petition for judicial review
in the 19th JDC. See La. R.S. 15: 1177( A).
                                                  On review of the agency decision, the
district court functions as an appellate court. Brawn v. Louisiana Dep' t of Tub.

Safety &     Corr., 2015- 1958 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 19/ 16), 277 So. 3d 326, 329.
                                                                                      The

district court' s review shall be confined to the record and limited to the issues
presented in the petition for review and the ARP filed at the agency level.     See La.

R. S. 15: 1177( A)(5).

       On appellate review of a district court' s judgment in a suit for judicial

review under La. R.S. 15: 1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the

factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is
owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of
the court of appeal.       As such, the de novo standard of review shall be applied.

                                             GI
 Greenhouse v. Louisiana Dep' t ofPub. Safety & Corr., 2017- 0316 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
 11/ 1/ 17), 2017 WL 4946864,         at *    2 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2017- 2122 ( La.

 1/ 8/ 19); 259 So. 3d 1021.

                                        DISCUSSION

       Bradley' s     sole   assignment       of error relates to his allegation that the

 Department failed to restore forfeited good time in accordance with the Rivera
 decision.
              It is clear from the appellate record that Bradley' s 2021 ARP contains
the same allegations as his 2018 ARP.                However, it is unclear whether Bradley
sought judicial review of his 2018 ARP. The Commissioner' s Report references

the Department' s claims that Bradley failed to appeal the denial of his 2018 ARP.

The report further states that the Department reiterated that claim during an
October 13,      2022 status conference and references a transcript from that status

conference in a footnote. That transcript is not contained within the record.

       Based on our review of the appellate administrative record and pursuant to
LSA-R. S.      15: 1177( A)(9),   we find no error in the district court' s judgment

dismissing the petition for judicial review. On review, we conclude that Bradley

has failed to prove that the Department' s decision was arbitrary, capricious,

manifestly erroneous, or in violation of Bradley' s constitutional or statutory rights,
and, thus, the district court was correct in dismissing Bradley' s suit. See Thomas
v. Hebert, 2010- 1317 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 11/ 11),          2011 WL 766665,    at *   2.   We

further note that, pursuant to the Department' s rules governing adult administrative
remedy procedures, the ARP screening officer is specifically authorized to reject a

request for administrative remedy where, as here, the complaint is a duplicate
request.     See LAC 22: I.325( c)( i)( c).     Considering the foregoing, the 19"      JDC' s

December 28, 2022 judgment is affirmed.

                                                 5
      For the above reasons, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s December 28,

2022 judgment is affirmed.
                             Costs of the appeal are assessed to Wilbert Bradley,
Appellant.

      AFFIRMED.