Court Opinion

ID: 9896330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:09:24.996026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:43.401464
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                           COURT OF APPEAL

                              FIRST CIRCUIT

                         NUMBER 2023 CA 05 19

zx                        TOMMY LOUIS DAVIS
  VY
                                  VERSUS

  DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS & ET AL.

                                     Judgment Rendered:        NOV 0 9 2023

                             Appealed from the
                     Nineteenth Judicial District Court
                  In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                             State of Louisiana
                           Suit Number C675485

                   Honorable Trudy M. White, Presiding

Tommy Davis                              Plaintiff/Appellant
Kinder, LA                               In Proper Person

Heather C. Hood                          Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Baton Rouge, LA                          James M. LeBlanc

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

         Tommy Louis Davis, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public

Safety and Corrections ( DPSC), appeals a district court judgment dismissing his

petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm.

                     FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On October 29, 2018, Davis filed a petition for judicial review in the

Nineteenth Judicial District Court ( 19th JDC) seeking review of ARP # 2013- 3814

and ARDC # 2017- 152.     Additionally, Davis alleged that DPSC failed to address his

complaint regarding his DOC number and misidentification. On February 8, 2019,

the district court issued a multiple claims order to Davis, recognizing that Davis had

sought review of multiple administrative procedures in one suit far judicial review,

i.e.,   an ARP, a property claim, and an unnamed ARP. Because an inmate is only

entitled to seek judicial review of a single administrative record in any lawsuit, the

district court ordered Davis to notify the court, in writing, within thirty days from

the date of the order, which single administrative record listed in the appellate

petition he sought to be reviewed in the lawsuit and to provide the court with a copy

of the final agency decision issued in that record.

         In his response filed February 28,     2019,   Davis   once   again provided

information regarding all three of his original complaints. The court held a status

conference on May 7, 2019, wherein it explained to Davis that he could only proceed

with one grievance and asked him which grievance he wanted the court to review.

Davis requested that the court review the unnamed ARP. However, because the

record did not contain proof that Davis had exhausted the administrative remedy

procedure for the unnamed ARP, and DPSC likewise had no record of exhaustion

by Davis for the particular grievance associated with the unnamed ARP, the court

issued an order remanding the matter to Davis to allow him to supplement the record

                                          2
with proof of exhaustion of the unnamed ARP. The order stayed the matter for thirty

days during which Davis was required to supplement the record with proof of

exhaustion of the unnamed ARP relating to his grievance regarding his DOC

number.   On June 12, 2019, Davis filed a response to the court' s order.

       Thereafter, a 19'   JDC Commissioner issued a screening recommendation,

noting that Davis' s responses to the court' s orders did not contain proof of

exhaustion and as such, were non- compliant with the court' s orders.    Accordingly,

because exhaustion of administrative remedies is the exclusive process by which a

cause of action may be preserved for judicial review on appeal, and Davis failed to

prove such exhaustion, the Commissioner recommended that the petition for j udicial

review be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based

on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with La. R.S.

15: 1172( C).   The district court subsequently signed a screening judgment adopting

the written recommendation of the Commissioner and dismissing Davis' s petition

far judicial review of an unnamed ARP. Davis now appeals from the district court' s

judgment.

                                   DISCUSSION

      The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure ( CARP), set forth in La.

R. S. 15: 1171, etseq., authorizes DPSC to adopt an administrative remedy procedure

for receiving, hearing, and disposing of any and all inmate complaints and

grievances.
                The adopted procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling the

complaints and grievances to which they apply.       La. R.S. 15: 1171( B); Allen v.

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 20- 0443, p. 4 ( La. App. 1 st

Cir. 2124121), 322 So. 3d 258, 260.

      The rules and procedures promulgated by DPSC are set forth in Section 325

of Title 22, Part 1 of the Louisiana Administrative Code.     Crooker v. Dillon, 21-

1431, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6122122), 343 So. 3d 799, 802. Pursuant to these rules,

                                          3
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: 1. 325F( 3)( a)( viii). If an inmate fails to

exhaust available administrative remedies, the district court and the appellate court

lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim. Allen, 20- 0443, p. 5, 322 So.

3d at 261.

       Accordingly, because the record in this case is devoid of any evidence that

Davis exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the unnamed ARP prior to

filing his petition for judicial review in the district court, the district court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction to consider his petition. Therefore, we find that the trial

court correctly dismissed Davis' s petition for judicial review.           See La. R. S.

15: 1172( C).

                                    CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.        All

costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant, Tommy Louis Davis.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            4