Court Opinion

ID: 9840223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 16:06:05.144121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:23.214676
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                              COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                             NUMBER 2023 CA 0138

                               SAMUEL BARKER

                                    VERSUS

rr   UISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
V

                                                     Judgment Rendered:   SEP 15 2023

                               On appeal from the
                       Nineteenth Judicial District Court
                   In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                                State of Louisiana
                             Docket Number 0712294

                  Honorable Kelly Balfour, Judge Presiding

     Samuel Barker                           In Proper Person, Plaintiff/Appellant
     Angola, LA

     Elizabeth B. Desselle                   Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
     Baton Rouge, LA                         Department of Public Safety and
                                             Corrections

            BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.
GUIDRY, C. J.

        Samuel Barker, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of

Public Safety and Corrections (" the Department"), appeals a judgment of the

district court dismissing his petition for judicial review.             For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

                     FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        In December of 2020, the petitioner in this matter, Mr. Barker, filed a

grievance, Administrative Remedy Procedure number LSP -2020- 3249, in which he

challenged and complained about the Department' s " backlog" policy, noting that it

was restrictive and unfair.    The Department denied Mr. Barker' s request for relief

at the first and second steps.     Thereafter, Mr. Barker sought judicial review of the

Department' s     decision    in   the    Nineteenth     Judicial    District     Court.        The

commissioner assigned to review the petition concluded that Mr. Barker failed to

state a cause of action, and recommended that Mr. Barker' s petition be dismissed.

Thereafter, on October 31, 2022, the district court rendered a judgment in favor of

the   Department,    dismissing Mr.       Barker' s    petition    for judicial    review,      with

prejudice.   Mr. Barker now appeals.

                                         DISCUSSION

        As provided for in the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Procedure Act,

an    offender   aggrieved   by    an    adverse   decision       rendered   pursuant      to   any

administrative remedy procedure can institute proceedings for judicial review by

filing a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.                 La.

R.S. 15: 1177.   The review shall be confined to the record and shall be limited to

the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy

request filed at the agency level.       La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(5).     The court may reverse

or modify the agency decision " only if substantial rights of the appellant have been

prejudiced" because the administrative decisions or findings are: ( 1) in violation of

                                               2
constitutional or statutory provisions; ( 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the

agency; ( 3)   made upon unlawful procedure; (   4) affected by other error of law; ( 5)

arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion; or ( 6) manifestly

erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole

record.    La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9).

       On review of the 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 the factual findings or legal conclusions of the

court of appeal.    Grimes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

20- 0089, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11112120), 316 So. 3d 35, 38. Additionally, we

note that the administrative remedy procedure allows the Department to backlog

multiple requests for administrative relief. See Vincent v. Stalder, 04- 1750, pp. 2-

3 ( La. App. ist Cir. 9123105), 923 So. 2d 108, 109. Louisiana Administrative Code

22: I.325 provides:

       If an offender submits multiple requests during the review of a
       previous request, they will be logged and set aside for handling at
       such time as the request currently in the system has been exhausted at
       the second step or until time limits to proceed from the first step to the
       second step have lapsed. The warden may determine whether a letter
       of instruction to the offender is in order.

LAC 22: 1. 325( F)( 3)( a)( ix).

       In the present matter, Mr. Barker complains about the Department' s backlog

process.    However, as stated by the commissioner, " On September 18, 1985, the

Department installed in all of its adult institutions a formal grievance mechanism

for use by all offenders committed to the custody of the Department....      Offenders

are required to use and complete all steps in the procedure properly, including

obeying all rules of the procedural process ...." (   Emphasis omitted.)

                                            3
        Having reviewed the record herein and the provisions of the Department' s

administrative remedy procedure, we find no error in the district court' s judgment.

The Department informed Mr. Barker that,                  in accordance with its policy, it

received, logged, and set aside his request for relief because he had other requests

pending in the system. In addition, the Department informed Mr. Barker that he

was free to withdraw his previous requests for relief to allow any others to be

addressed immediately.

        Mr. Barker' s petition for judicial review does not allege a violation of his

substantial     rights.    Accordingly, we find no error in the district court' s ruling,

dismissing the petition for judicial review for failure to state a cause of action.'

                                          CONCLUSION

        For the above reasons, the October 31, 2022 judgment of the district court is

affirmed.      All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff/appellant, Samuel

Barker.

        AFFIRMED.

1 To the extent that Mr. Barker raises issues in his appellate brief concerning an " emergency"
ARP, we note that         review of the Department' s administrative decision is limited to issues
presented in the petition for judicial review and in the ARP at the agency level.    See La. R.S.
15: 1177( A)( 5).   In the ARP under review herein, Mr. Barker did not complain about the
backlogging of an emergency ARP.