Thomas Haynes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections ( 2022 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL'
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2021 CA 0892
THOMAS HAYNES
VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered:
FEB 2 5 2022
On Appeal from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 705760
Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
Thomas Haynes Plaintiff -Appellant,
Homer, LA Pros Se
Jonathan R. Vining Attorney for Defendant -Appellee,
Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., PENZATO, AND HESTER, JJ.
HESTER, J.
Thomas Haynes is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections (the Department), housed at David Wade Correctional
Center. On March 16, 2021, Mr. Haynes filed a petition for judicial review of
Administrative Remedy Procedure ( ARP) No. DWCC- 2020- 0003, seeking review
in accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1171 et seq. In his petition, Mr. Haynes contended
that the Department misinterpreted the applicable law to determine his eligibility for
geriatric parole. Attached to Mr. Haynes' petition was the Department' s second step
response to Mr. Haynes' ARP dated January 7, 2021.
Upon receipt of Mr. Haynes' petition, the Commissioner of the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court' issued a Rule to Show Cause pointing out that La. R.S.
15: 1177 imposes a thirty -day peremptory time limit on all such appeals starting from
the date of receipt of the final agency decision to the date of mailing the appeal to
the court for filing. The Commissioner noted that the Department' s decision was
issued on January 7, 2021, but Mr. Haynes' suit was not received by the district court
until March 16, 2021, more than thirty days after the final decision was rendered.
The Commissioner stated that "[ i]t is not clear from the attachments submitted by
Mr. Haynes] as to when he signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the final agency
decision." The Commissioner ordered Mr. Haynes to show cause why his appeal
should not be dismissed based on his failure to timely seek judicial review.
Mr. Haynes responded to the rule contending that he had some difficulty
obtaining the services of a notary. Mr. Haynes did not introduce any evidence to
show when he received the final decision of the Department.
1 The office of Commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court 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. La. R.S. 13: 713( A). The Commissioner' s written findings and
recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them.
La. R. S. 13: 713( C)( 5). Pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 1178 and La. R.S. 15: 1188, the district court is
required to screen all prisoner suits prior to requiring service on the Department to determine if
the court has subject matter jurisdiction.
2
Thereafter, the Commissioner issued a screening report finding that the
petition for judicial review was untimely on the face of the petition, and Mr. Haynes
failed to show proof to the contrary. The Commissioner recommended that Mr.
Haynes' suit should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In a
judgment signed on June 1, 2021, the district court adopted the recommendation of
the Commissioner after a de novo review of the record and ordered that Mr. Haynes'
suit be dismissed without prejudice.
Louisiana Revised Statute 15: 1177( A) provides that an inmate aggrieved by
an adverse decision of the Department may " within thirty days after receipt of the
decision, seek judicial review of the decision only in the Nineteenth Judicial District
Court...." In order for the jurisdiction of the reviewing court to attach, the petition
for judicial review must be timely filed. Tatum v. Lynn, 93- 1559 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
5/ 20/ 94), 637 So. 2d 796, 797. Moreover, this thirty -day period is peremptive, rather
than prescriptive, and may not be interrupted or suspended. Evans v. Louisiana
Dept of Public Safety & Corrections, 2013- 1345 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 25/ 14), 147
So. 3d 195, 197.
Mr. Haynes filed his petition for judicial review more than 67 days after the
final agency decision was rendered, but the date he received the Department' s
decision was not in the record. In the rule to show cause, the Commissioner gave
Mr. Haynes the opportunity to produce evidence of the date he received the final
agency decision. In his response, he failed to do so.
In Burks v. Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections, 2014- 1470 (La.
App. 1st Cir. 4/ 30/ 15) 2015 WL 3404793, ( unpublished), this court was presented
with the same procedural issue. In Burks, the date the inmate received the final
agency decision was not in the record, and the petition for judicial review was filed
43 days after the final agency decision was rendered. The Commissioner, by a rule to
show cause, gave the inmate an opportunity to prove the date he received the decision,
3
and he failed to do so. In that case, this court determined that the record amply
supported the judgment of the district court and affirmed the decision of the district
court dismissing the inmate' s petition for judicial review. Burks, 2015 WL 3404793at * 2.
Herein, like in Burks, Mr. Haynes' petition was filed well over thirty days
after the Department' s decision was rendered, he was given an opportunity to
provide evidence of the date he received the Department' s decision, and he did not
produce any evidence of that date. Therefore, pursuant to the jurisprudence of this
court, and after review of the record before us, we affirm the decision of the district
court dismissing Mr. Haynes' petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the June 1, 2021 judgment of the district court
dismissing Mr. Haynes' petition without prejudice is hereby affirmed. Costs of this
appeal are assessed to Thomas Haynes.
AFFIRMED.
El