Samuel Barker v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( 2023 )

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.