Robert Collins v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections ( 2021 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2020 CA 0958
ROBERT COLLINS
VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered. APR 16 2021
Appealed from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Case No. C669861
The Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
Robert Collins Plaintiff/Appellant
Jackson, Louisiana Pro Se
Elizabeth B. Desselle Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections
BEFORE; THERIOT, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ.
THERIOT, J.
Robert Collins appeals the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s judgment
rendered on May 26, 2020. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Robert Collins (" Appellant") is an inmate at Dixon Correctional Institute in
Jackson, Louisiana. On May 30, 2018, Appellant filed a petition for judicial
1
review of Administrative Remedy Procedure (" ARP") No. HDQ- 2017- 1572. He
named James LeBlanc and Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
DPSC") as defendants. In his petition for judicial review, Appellant alleged that
he was entitled to 360 days of Certified Treatment and Rehabilitation Program
CTRP") credits. In addition to 360 days of CTRP credits, Appellant also sought
5, 000. 00 plus court costs and any fees.
According to the record, Appellant previously filed a step one grievance on
July 31, 2017, alleging that he was owed 360 days of diminution of sentence. On
September 8, 2017, Appellant filed a step two grievance, alleging that he had not
received a response to his step one grievance and now seeking 195 days of
diminution of sentence. Appellant' s request was denied. The second step response
form to ARP No. HDQ-2017- 1572 states that "[ o] ffenders must be eligible to earn
good time, diminution of sentence or qualify pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 571. 3( E) in
order to be approved to earn CTRP credits. Act 1209 does not qualify for CTRP
credit as stated in [ La. R.S.] 15: 571. 3 and [ La. R.S.] 15: 828." ( Internal quotation
marks omitted.)
1 Appellant' s petition for judicial review also sought review of ARP No. HDQ-2018- 0272. However, the documents
filed in response to Appellant' s petition only reference ARP No. HDQ-2017- 1572. Regardless, inmates may only
seek judicial review of one administrative remedy procedure per lawsuit or petition. See Lightfoot v. Stalder, 97-
2626 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 98); 727 So.2d 553, 554- 55.
2
On July 2, 2018, after Appellant filed the instant petition for judicial review,
the Commissioner of the 19" JDC ordered that a copy of the petition be served
upon LeBlanc. LeBlanc answered the petition on August 7, 2018, asserting that
Appellant had been convicted of pornography involving juveniles, which falls
3
under " Act 1209." Accordingly, LeBlanc stated that Appellant is not eligible to
earn diminution of his sentence, including CTRP credits.
On March 6, 2020, the Commissioner issued a report in which she
recommended that Appellant' s suit be dismissed with prejudice and that all
outstanding motions filed by Appellant in the pending lawsuit be dismissed. The
Commissioner first noted that, per La. R.S. 15: 1177( C) and Pope v. State, 1999-
2559 ( La. 6/ 29/ 01); 792 So. 2d 713, relief in the form of an award of monetary
damages is not available via the petition for judicial review process. Regarding
Appellant' s request for CTRP credits, the Commissioner reviewed the applicable
statutes and concluded that " only offenders who are eligible to earn good time for
good behavior may also earn additional CTRP credits towards a good time release
date." The Commissioner further stated that, pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 537 ( referred
to in the report as Act 1209), Appellant is not eligible for diminution of sentence
for good behavior because his underlying offense was a sex offense.
Accordingly, on May 26, 2020, the 19" JDC signed a judgment affirming
DPSC' s decision in ARP No. HDQ-2017- 1572 and dismissing Appellant' s appeal,
with prejudice, at Appellant' s cost. The 19th JDC adopted the Commissioner' s
Report as reasons. The May 26, 2020 judgment also dismissed all subsequent
motions filed by Appellant into the record, as they are beyond the scope of the 19"
JDC' s judicial review. This appeal followed.
2 The office of the 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. Hakim- El-
Mumit v. Stalder, 2003- 2549 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 10/ 29/ 04); 897 So. 2d 112, 113 n. 1.
Act 1209 is also known as La. R.S. 15: 537, which states in pertinent part, " If a person is convicted of or pleads
guilty to ... [ La.] R.S. 14: 81. 1 ( pornography involving juveniles) ... the person shall not be eligible for diminution
of sentence for good behavior."
3
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Appellant assigns the following as error:
1) The trial court misinterpreted La. R.S. 15: 537 ( Act 1209) and La.
R. S. 15: 571. 3.
2) The trial court misinterpreted La. R.S. 15: 571. 3( E) and La. R.S.
15: 828( C).
3) The trial court confused the terms " good behavior" and " good
time."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appellate review of a 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 factual findings or legal conclusions of
the court of appeal. As such, the de novo standard of review shall be applied.
Greenhouse v. Louisiana Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections, 2017- 0316
La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 1/ 17); 2017 WL 4946864, at * 2 ( unpublished), writ denied,
2017- 2122 ( La. 1/ 8/ 19); 259 So. 3d 1021.
DISCUSSION
After considering the entire record of the proceedings, the 19" JDC adopted
the Commissioner' s recommendation and signed a judgment on May 26, 2020
affirming DPSC' s decision regarding ARP No. HDQ-2017- 1572, dismissing
Appellant' s appeal with prejudice, and dismissing all subsequent motions filed by
Appellant into the record as they are beyond the scope of the trial court' s judicial
review. After a thorough review of the record of the instant appeal, we find no
error in the judgment of the 19th JDC and find that the Commissioner' s
recommendation, which the district court adopted as its own, adequately explains
the decision. Thus, we affirm the 1911 JDC' s judgment in accordance with
Uniform Rules —Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 2( A)(5), ( 6), ( 7), ( 8), and ( 10).
M
DECREE
For the above and foregoing reasons, the May 26, 2020 judgment of the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are assessed to
Appellant, Robert Collins.
AFFIRMED.
5