Timothy L. Gray v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections ( 2020 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2019 CA 1512
TIMOTHY L. GRAY
VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered: JUL 2 3 2020
7GX ) C K X X
On appeal from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Docket Number C682670
Honorable Richard " Chip" Moore, Judge Presiding
Timothy L. Gray Plaintiff/Appellant
Ruston, LA In Proper Person
Elizabeth B. Dessellee Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY, AND BURRIS,' JJ.
1 Judge William J. Burris, retired, serving pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana
Supreme Court.
GUIDRY, J.
This is an appeal from a trial court judgment dismissing a prisoner' s suit for
judicial review.2 For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiff, Timothy L. Gray, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( DPSC), filed a petition for judicial
review of the administrative decision rendered on his Disciplinary Board Appeal
No. DWCC- 2019- 033.
On February 11, 2019, Mr. Gray was issued a disciplinary report for
violating Rule No. 1 of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders,
Contraband. 3 Mr. Gray was found to be in possession of a piece of paper with
cocaine on it.4 Following a hearing, the Disciplinary Board found Mr. Gray guilty
and sentenced him to forfeiture of 90 days good time and eight weeks loss of
canteen privileges. Mr. Gray appealed the decision to the warden, who found the
disciplinary report to be clear, concise, and providing convincing evidence of the
rule violation as charged. Mr. Gray then appealed the decision to the Secretary of
the DPSC, who denied his appeal.
On May 6, 2019, Mr. Gray filed a petition for judicial review. The
Commissioner issued a recommendation and concluded that Mr. Gray was in
violation of Rule No. 1, Contraband. The Commissioner further concluded that the
DPSC' s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of Mr. Gray' s rights
and recommended that the appeal be dismissed. After a de novo review of the
record, the trial court, on August 26, 2019, adopted the reasons of the
Z Although DPSC was not actually named as a defendant in Mr. Gray' s petition, in accordance
with La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)( 1)( b), DPSC is the only proper defendant in an administrative appeal
filed by a prisoner. Therefore, the Commissioner issued a service order, ordering service on the
DPSC through defendant, James LeBlanc.
3 See LAC 22: I: 341( 1).
4 A Quick Response Cocaine Test was conducted.
2
Commissioner, affirmed the DPSC' s decision, and dismissed Mr. Gray' s appeal
with prejudice. Mr. Gray then filed the instant appeal.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 1177 sets forth the appropriate standard of
review by the district court, which functions as an appellate court when reviewing
DPSC' s administrative decisions. Judicial review is mandated to be conducted by
the trial court without a jury and must be confined to the record. La. R. S.
15: 1177( A)(5). Specifically, the court may reverse or modify the administrative
decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings are: ( 1) in violation of 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 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 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. McCoy v. Stalder, 99- 1747, p. 6 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 22/ 00),
770 So. 2d 447, 450- 451.
In this appeal, Mr. Gray contends that his due process rights were violated,
and that the penalties imposed by the DPSC should be reversed. s Mr. Gray argues
that he was not in possession of an illegal substance, was not screened for drugs,
5 Mr. Gray also prays that he is compensated for lost wages and emotional suffering, and
reassigned to his job site.
3
and that a full lab analysis was not performed on the substance found on the piece
of paper.6
After reviewing the administrative record and considering Mr. Gray' s
arguments, the Commissioner noted, " Petitioner' s argument during the disciplinary
hearing contradicts his current contention. At the hearing, Petitioner stated that he
picked up the piece of paper... thinking it was a number." The Commissioner
further noted that by having cocaine under his immediate control, Mr. Gray had
clearly violated Rule No. 1, Contraband.
After our review of the record herein, we find no error in the trial court' s
finding that Mr. Gray' s suit for judicial review should be dismissed with prejudice
under La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9). 7 Based upon the information contained in the
record, it is clear that Mr. Gray was in possession of a piece of paper found to be
positive for cocaine. After a full hearing, the DPSC concluded that Mr. Gray had
violated the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders. Mr. Gray' s
arguments lack merit.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the August 26, 2019
judgment of the trial court that affirmed the decision of the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections and dismissed Timothy L. Gray' s suit with prejudice. All
costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff/appellant, Timothy L. Gray.
AFFIRMED.
6 Although Mr. Gray raises issues concerning " contamination" and " chain of custody" in this
appeal, those issues were not raised during the Administrative Remedy Procedure and cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal in this court. Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 1177( A)( 5)
specifically limits judicial review of DPSC administrative decisions to " the issues presented in
the petition for review and the administrative remedy request filed at the agency level."
7
Any claims filed by Mr. Gray for injury or damages are also subject to dismissal in this judicial
review; they must be filed separately as original civil actions. See La. R.S. 15: 1177( C).
0