Jason J. Spikes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( 2023 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2022 CA 0880
JASON J. SPIKES
VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
r Pt4/( CORRECTIONS
DATE of JUDGMENT:• FEB 2 4 2023
ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NUMBER 715967, SECTION 32
HONORABLE ROBERT MORRISON, JUDGE AD HOC
Jason Jarrell Spikes Plaintiff A
- ppellant
Angie, Louisiana Pro Se
Jonathan R. Vining Counsel for Defendant -Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections
BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND RESTER, JJ.
Disposition: AFFIRMED.
Chutz, J.
Jason Jarrell Spikes, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections (" DPSC"), appeals a district court judgment
dismissing, without prejudice, his petition for judicial review of Administrative
Remedy Procedure ( ARP) No. RCC -2021- 591 for lack of jurisdiction due to his
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm.
4n September 20, 2021, Spikes filed ARP No. RCC -2021- 591. It appears he
claimed therein that he was beaten by several correctional officers, resulting in
injuries including a swollen eye and a broken jaw requiring hospitalization. Spikes
alleged he was also subsequently threatened with further bodily harm by high-
ranking correctional officers. Spikes sought civil, criminal, and administrative
relief, as well as payment of his medical bills.
After receiving ARP No. RCC -2021- 591, DPSC informed Spikes the ARP
was being placed on " backlog" because he already had another ARP pending in the
system.
Spikes was further informed he could withdraw the previously pending
ARP if he wished to have ARP No. RCC -2021- 0591 handled immediately. 4n
February 14, 2022, Spikes filed a petition for judicial review in the 19th Judicial
District Court seeking review of ARP No. RCC -2021- 591. In the petition, Spikes
made no reference to any final agency decision on ARP No. RCC -2021- 591. Upon
review, a 19th JDC commissioner' concluded Spikes' petition failed to comply with
the district court' s local rules, which required he file written proof that he had
exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the ARP in accordance with
La. R.S. 15: 1172 and 1184. Accordingly, the commissioner issued an order to
Spikes on February 16, 2022, to submit such proof within 15 days and informed him
the failure to do so could result in dismissal of the suit. In response, Spikes submitted
1 See La. R.S. 13: 711 and 713.
2
a letter from DPSC establishing that after ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 was received and
assigned a number, DPSC placed it on backlog pending the completion of Spikes'
other ARPs. In the letter, DPSC further informed Spikes that ARP No. RCC -2021-
591 would be accepted once the other " active" ARP he had in the system was
exhausted.
On March 15, 2022, the commissioner issued a screening recommendation to
the district court in accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1178 and 1184- 88. Therein, the
commissioner determined the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
review ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 because Spikes failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to instituting suit, i.e., his suit was filed prematurely. Thus, in
accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1178, the commissioner recommended Spikes' suit be
dismissed without prejudice.
In an apparent response to the commissioner' s screening recommendation,
Spikes filed a motion requesting his suit be held open until he had exhausted his
administrative remedies.
He attached a letter to the motion showing DPSC had
responded to his request that ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 " be answered" by informing
him ARP No. RCC- 2021- 591was backlogged and had not yet been accepted because
his prior ARP had not been exhausted at that time.
On May 16, 2022, the district court signed a judgment adopting the
recommendation of the commissioner and dismissing, without prejudice, Spikes'
petition for judicial review of ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance
with La. R.S. 15: 1172( C). Spikes appealed this judgment.
The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure (" CARP"), La. R. S.
15: 1171- 1179, provides that DPSC may adopt an administrative remedy procedure
for receiving, hearing, and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by
offenders against the state, the governor, and/ or DPSC or its employees. The
3
adopted procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling the complaints and
grievances to which they apply. La. R. S. 15: 1171; Spikes v Louisiana Department
ofPuh. Safety & Corrections, 22- 0504 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 4/ 22), So. 3d ,
2022 WL 16705741, at * 2.
Pursuant to the rules and regulations promulgated by DPSC, offenders must
exhaust a two-step ARP before they can proceed with a suit in federal or state court.
See La. R.S. 15. 1176; LAC 22: I.325( F)( 3)( a)( viii). If an offender fails to exhaust
available administrative remedies, the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to
review the claim. Spikes, So. 3d at , 2022 WL 16705741, at * 2; Dickens v
Louisiana Correctional lnstitute for Women, 11 - 0 176 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 9/ 14/ 11),
77 So. 3d 70, 74- 75. Under LAC 22. I. 325( E), exhaustion of available administrative
remedies "
only occurs when an offender files a timely and procedurally proper
request for remedy, which after it is accepted, is addressed on the merits at Doth the
first and second step." ( Emphasis added.)
In the event an offender submits multiple ARP requests during the review of
a previous ARP request, the subsequent ARP requests will be backlogged and set
aside for handling at such time as the ARP 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. LAC 22: I.325( F)( 3)( a)( ix). This regulation applies to
situations where an ARP request for relief has been accepted at the initial step of the
ARP and a distinct, subsequent ARP request for relief is filed. Spikes, So. 3d at
2022 WL 16705741, at * 2; Vincent v Stalder, 04- 1750 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
9/ 23/ 05), 923 So.2d 108, 110. Additionally, the time limits provided for DPSC to
respond to an offender' s ARP request for relief do not operate to prevent DPSC from
backlogging multiple requests for administrative relief. The time periods provided
by DPSC' s regulations for handling ARPs apply only to ARP claims accepted and
M
processed by DPSC. 2 Spikes, So. 3d at , 2022 WL 16705741, at * 2; Vincent,
923 So. 2d at 110- 11. Moreover, DPSC' s regulation regarding backlogging of
multiple claims is a valid and reasonable exercise of the authority granted to DPSC.
Id.
In the instant case, the record reflects Spikes' ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 was
placed on backlog when it was received by DPSC on September 20, 2021, because
he already had a prior ARP being processed. Nevertheless, without waiting for ARP
No. RCC -2021- 591 to be accepted by DPSC and processed, Spikes filed this petition
for judicial review on February 14, 2022, while the ARP was still backlogged. This
petition, which was filed before any agency decision had been made, was
unquestionably filed prior to the exhaustion of Spikes' administrative remedies.
Thus, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review ARP number
RCC -2021- 591 and properly dismissed Spikes' petition for judicial review without
prejudice. See Spikes, So. 3d at , 2022 WL 16705741, at * 2; Dickens, 77
So. 3d at 74- 75.
On appeal, Spikes requested additional time to exhaust his administrative
remedies so that he could comply with the order of the 19th JDC. 3 He attached a
copy of a letter from DPSC, dated July 22, 2022, indicating ARP -2021- 591 had been
removed from backlog, accepted by DPSC, and was being processed. In the letter,
DPSC informed Spikes his request to proceed to the second step had been received,
2 When DPSC has accepted an offender' s ARP, the warden is required to respond within 40 days
from the date the request is received at the first step. LAC 22: I.325( J)( 1)( a)( ii). An offender who
is not satisfied with the warden' s first step response may proceed to the second step and appeal to
the secretary of DPSC. LAC 22: 1. 325( J)( 1)( b)( i). The final decision of the secretary ( or his
designee) shall be made and the offender shall be sent a response within 45 days from the date the
request is received at the second step. LAC 22: 1. 325( J)( 1)( b)( ii). No more than 90 days from the
initiation to completion of the process shall elapse, unless an extension has been granted. Absent
such an extension, expiration of the response time limits shall entitle the offender to move on to
the next step in the process. LAC 22. 1. 325( J)( 1)( c).
3 Spikes appears to be referring to the February 16, 2022 order issued by the 19``h JDC commission
ordering Spikes to file written proof within 15 days that he had exhausted his administrative
remedies with regard to the ARP in accordance with La. R. S. 15: 1172 and 1184.
R
and he would receive a response within the applicable delays. Regardless, this
information regarding subsequent events is irrelevant because Spikes had already
filed his petition for judicial review prior to the exhaustion of his administrative
remedies. See Spikes, So -3d at , 2022 WL 16705741, at * 2.
For these reasons, the May 16 2022 judgment of the district court dismissing
Spikes' petition for judicial review, without prejudice, is affirmed in accordance
with Uniform Rules -- Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 1( B). All costs of this appeal
are assessed to Jason Jarrell Spikes.
AFFIRMED,
rel