Court Opinion

ID: 9395959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 22:05:58.048433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.975192
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                   STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                     COURT OF APPEAL

                                        FIRST CIRCUIT

                                          2022 CA 1115

                                     DARRIN ROBINSON

oi
     f                                       VERSUS

                 LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY &
                                        CORRECTIONS

                                                      Judgment Rendered:      MAY 18 2023

                           On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court
                             In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                                         State of Louisiana
                                      Trial Court No. 0707742

                             Honorable Kelly Balfour, Judge Presiding

         Darrin Robinson                             Plaintiff/Appellant,
         Raymond Laborde Correctional Center         In Proper Person
         Cottonport, Louisiana

         Jonathan Vining                             Attorneys for Defendant/ Appellee,
         Aisha K. Mirza                              Louisiana Department of Public
         Baton Rouge, Louisiana                      Safety and Corrections

                     BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
         t.,/
PENZATO, I

         Darrin Robinson, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of

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

dismissing his petition for judicial review as moot and assessing him with the cost

of the suit.    Because we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction, we amend the district court' s judgment to reflect that Mr. Robinson' s

application for judicial review is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

and affirm the judgment as amended.

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Mr. Robinson is an inmate housed at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center

 RLCC).        On June 22,         2020,   he was found guilty by a legally sanctioned

Disciplinary Board of violating Rule # 1         Contraband. He was sentenced to 20 days

disciplinary segregation and 30 days forfeiture of good time.                    Mr. Robinson

appealed, and on July 10, 2020, it was determined that proper procedure had not

been followed, and Mr. Robinson was granted a rehearing. The rehearing was

never held.

         On July 13, 2020, Mr. Robinson was found guilty by a legally sanctioned

Disciplinary Board of violating Rule # 11            Aggravated Fight and was sentenced to

30 days forfeiture of good time, 1 - week loss of canteen, and restitution in the

amount of $ 10. 00        for medical expenses.       Mr. Robinson appealed.       On July 22,

2020, an appeal decision was issued indicating that Mr. Robinson would be granted

a rehearing at least 24 hours after he was given a copy of the disciplinary report,

which was given to him on July 23, 2020. The rehearing was never held.

         On April    6,    2021,    Mr.    Robinson initiated an Administrative Remedy

Procedure ( ARP No. RLCC- 2021- 202),            asserting that his disciplinary convictions

had been administratively reversed, but the punishments were continuing to be

enforced,
             including the loss of good time credits and his continued custody in

                                                 2
disciplinary segregation. Mr. Robinson sought the following relief: " that                    the said

punishments      be   vacated,    terminated,      and     nullified   and    that   said     reversed

convictions be expunged from [ his] record; that [ he] be IMMEDIATELY released

from maximum custody and ... returned to [ his] previous housing ..., and that [ he]

be paid a reasonable sum."         On April 12, 2021, Mr. Robinson' s ARP was rejected

for the following reason: " OVER 90 DAYS DISCIPLINARY."

       On May 14, 2021,        Mr. Robinson filed a petition for judicial review in the

                                            19th
Nineteenth Judicial District Court (               JDC).    Mr. Robinson noted that his ARP

was rejected admission into the ARP process on the grounds that over 90 days had

elapsed since the incident and the filing of the ARP grievance and that he was

challenging a disciplinary matter.         Mr. Robinson argued that a " clear reading"              of

ARP No. RLCC- 2021- 202 revealed that "[ t]he date of the incident in this matter is

 continual' and ` on- going"'     and that he was not challenging the results or action of

the disciplinary board. Rather, Mr. Robinson argued that he was challenging the

continuing enforcement of the punishment imposed on him as a result of

disciplinary convictions that were reversed.               He sought expungement from his

record of the two disciplinary convictions, restoration of his good time credits, and

 any other relief deemed appropriate ...,              specifically in regards to [      a]   damage

award in this case."

       After reviewing the petition in accordance with the screening requirements

of La. R.S. 15: 1178 and 15: 1188, a 19th JDC commissioner' found that the claim

raised was a claim subject to judicial appellate review in accordance with La. R.S.

15: 1171 et seq. The commissioner ordered that the sheriff serve a copy of the

petition on DPSC, and that DPSC file any response thereto within thirty days of

k The office of 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. La. R. S. 13: 713( C)( 5);    Abbots v. LeBlanc, 2012-
 1476 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3125/ 13), 115 So. 3d 504, 505 riA.

                                                   C
service.   DPSC filed an answer to the petition on August 19, 2021, inclusive of the

entire administrative record, contending that as of that date, Mr. Robinson was

living in general population, all good time infractions had been restored to Mr.

Robinson' s time computation, and the $          10. 00 restitution had been refunded to Mr.

Robinson' s account. According to DPSC, no further relief was available.

        Mr. Robinson filed an objection to DPSC' s answer. At a status conference

held on October 12, 2021, Mr. Robinson advised the commissioner that he had not

received any documentation showing that his disciplinary record was expunged,

that   the $   10. 00    was   refunded,   or   that his   good   time   was   restored.        The

commissioner recessed the hearing to allow DPSC to provide the requested

documentation.

        On October 22, 2021,         DPSC filed a notice of compliance along with an

updated master prison record showing that Mr. Robinson' s good time was restored,

his inmate banking account was refunded, and the disciplinary convictions were

expunged.      A second status conference was held on May 3,                2022, at which Mr.

Robinson maintained his dissatisfaction with the relief he received despite the

documentation.

        On May 18, 2022, the commissioner issued a written recommendation that

the district court dismiss Mr. Robinson' s petition for judicial review as moot,

without prejudice, at Mr. Robinson' s cost. Based on DPSC' s answer and the notice

of compliance, the commissioner found that there was no further relief that could

be granted to Mr. Robinson.

        On June 8, 2022, Mr. Robinson filed an objection to the commissioner' s

report and recommendation.           On June 29, 2022, after a de novo consideration of

the pleadings, together with any timely filed traversal, the district court adopted the

commissioner' s         recommendation     and signed      a judgment    that dismissed Mn

Robinson' s petition for judicial review as moot,                 without    prejudice,    at   Mr.

                                                 G!
Robinson' s cost.     Mr. Robinson appeals the judgment of the district court.

                           SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

        Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue insofar as a judgment

rendered by a court that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or

                           La. C. C. P. art. 3;   Guy a Calvit, 2019- 1675 ( La. App.   1 Cir.
proceeding is void.

815120), 311 So. 3d 362, 367.         A court' s subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that

cannot be waived or conferred by the consent of the parties.                     Williams u

International Offshore Services, LLC, 2011- 1240 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1217112),         106 So.

3d 212, 217, writ denied, 2013- 0259 ( La. 318113), 109 So. 3d 367,             The issue of

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even by the court on its own

motion, and at any stage of an action.            Id. Appellate courts have a duty to examine

subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue.

Id.

        The rules and procedures governing the ARP process are set forth in Section

325 of Title 22, Part I of the Louisiana Administrative Code. Pursuant thereto, an

offender commences the formal administrative remedy process for grievances

either by completing a request for administrative remedy or by writing a letter to

the warden, in which he briefly sets out the basis for his claim, and the relief

sought.    LAC 22: 1. 325. 01. a. i. Once an offender initiates the formal ARP process,

the grievance is screened prior to being assigned to the first step in the two- step

ARP process.       LAC 22: I.325. 1. 1.    Through the screening process, the grievance is

either accepted and processed or rejected for one of the reasons enumerated in

LAC 22: I.325. I. I. c. i( a)-( 1).   An offender whose grievance is rejected during

screening for one of the enumerated reasons must correct the noted deficiencies

and resubmit the request to the ARP screening officer. LAC 22: I.325. I. 1. c. iii.

        The ARP process must be exhausted before an offender may proceed with a

suit in federal or state court.       Allen v Louisiana Department of Public Safety and

                                                    5
Corrections, 2020- 0445 (             La. App.         1 Cir. 2119121),       320 So. 3d 1175, 1177.                  A

request for an ARP that is rejected for any of the enumerated reasons in LAC

22: I.325. I. 1. c. i( a)-(   1) is not appealable to the second step, and an offender has not

properly exhausted his administrative remedies if his request is rejected during

grievance       screening.          LAC        22: I. 325. F.3. a. viii   and 22: I.325. I. 1. c. iii-iv. If an

offender fails to exhaust available administrative remedies, the district court and

the appellate court lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim. Allen, 320

So. 3d at 1177; Guy, 311 So. 3d at 366.

         In this      case,     Mr. Robinson' s             ARP No. RLCC- 2021- 202                    was    rejected

pursuant       to   LAC        22: 1. 325. 1. 1. c. i( i)   and   22: I. 325. 1. 1. c.( b)( i)    because      it    was

determined that it was untimely and a disciplinary matter. Mr. Robinson' s only

option at that point was to " correct the noted deficiencies and resubmit the request

to the ARP screening officer." LAC 22: 1. 325. I. 1. c. ni.                         See Allen, 320 So. 3d at

1177.     However, Mr. Robinson did not resubmit his request as required, but filed a

petition for judicial review.

         Offenders are required to use and complete all steps in the ARP properly,

including obeying all rules of the procedural process.                              LAC 22: I.325. D.1; Allen,

320 So. 3d at 1178.             Since Mr. Robinson' s ARP was rejected during screening and

he did not resubmit a request for an ARP with the noted deficiencies corrected, his

request for an ARP was never accepted for consideration,                                         and   as    such,   his

administrative remedies could not be exhausted.                           See LAC 22: I.325. F.3. a. viii. As

Mr. Robinson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the ARF, the

district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review Mr. Robinson' s

grievance.       See Allen, 320 So. 3d at 1178.

                                                 CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, we amend the district court' s June 29,                                         2022

judgment to reflect that Darrin Robinson' s application for judicial review of ARP

                                                             0
No.   RLCC- 2021- 202 is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The

judgment is affirmed as amended.     Costs of this appeal are assessed to Darrin

Robinson.

       JUDGMENT AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

                                        7