Dexter D. Holder v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections ( 2020 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2019 CA 1268
DEXTER D. HOLDER # 452102
VERSUS
f r
SECRETARY LEBLANC; LAURA ALLEN, RN;
DR. MACMURDO; DUSTIN HIGGINBOTHAM, RN;
SGT. SHANNIKA ROBINSON;
SGT. JOANNE MATTHEW; AND CAPTAIN ANDREW QUPID
Decision Rendered:
MAY 1 12020
APPEALED FROM THE
19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER C680238, DIVISION SECTION 24
HONORABLE MICHAEL CALDWELL, JUDGE
Dexter D. Holder Plaintiff/ Appellant
Jackson, Louisiana Pro Se
Jonathan R. Vining Attorney for Defendant/ Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, and CHUTZ, JJ.
McDONALD, J.
An inmate appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review, without
service and without prejudice, because the petition challenges multiple adverse
administrative remedy procedures in a single petition. We reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYi
In December 2017, Dexter Holder arrived at Dixon Correctional Institute ( DCI)
in Jackson, Louisiana, to serve or continue to serve a prison term to which he had
previously been sentenced. Due to preexisting medical and mental health diagnoses,
Mr. Holder was initially placed on temporary, restricted duty status. On February 1,
2018, Mr. Holder reported to the DCI clinic with what he claimed were emergency
medical complaints. Registered Nurse Laura Allen assessed Mr. Holder and found no
acute findings. Dr. Macmurdo then reviewed Mr. Holder' s medical chart, discontinued
his restricted duty status, and reassigned him to permanent, regular duty status. Mr.
Holder then filed an administrative remedy procedure ( ARP) claiming RN Allen
mistreated him, asking that he be seen by a DCI doctor, and also asking that he be
transferred to another facility. DCI officials numbered Mr. Holder' s ARP as # DCI -2018-
88. On February 6, 2018, Dr, Macmurdo saw Mr. Holder at the DCI clinic and
prescribed him medications for musculoskeletal pain. Dr. Macmurdo also submitted a
referral for Mr. Holder to see a general surgeon. Despite Mr. Holder' s objection, Dr.
Macmurdo maintained his permanent, regular duty status.
On March 14, 2018, Mr. Holder filed an unrelated ARP asking, inter alia, to
review cameras and sound devices, that a nurse identified as Justin Blades be
released," and that DCI transfer him to one of two other facilities. DCI officials
numbered Mr. Holder's second ARP as # DCI -2018- 294.
Both of Mr. Holder' s ARPs proceeded through administrative review and both
were denied. In March 2019, Mr. Holder filed the instant pro se petition for judicial
review in the 19th Judicial District Court, seeking review of ARP # DCI -2018- 88 and ARP
1 The factual and procedural history is taken from Mr. Holder's filings in the 19th Judicial District Court and
Dixon Correctional Institute administrative documents, all of which are in the appellate record.
2
DCI -2018- 294. Among others, Mr. Holder named Secretary LeBlanc, et al., RN Laura
Allen, and Dr. Macmurdo as defendants. z After screening the petition, a 19th JDC
Commissioner issued a Multiple Claims Order, noting that an inmate is only entitled to
seek judicial review of a single administrative record in any single lawsuit, and ordering
Mr. Holder to identify which one of the two challenged ARPs he wanted the district
court to review. Mr. Holder filed a response about two weeks later. The Commissioner
thereafter issued a screening report recommending that Mr. Holder's petition be
dismissed without prejudice.
On July 7, 2019, the district court signed a screening judgment, adopting the
Commissioner' s recommendation and pertinently stating:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this appeal be
dismissed, in accordance with R. S. 15: 1177 and Lightfoot v. Sta/der, 97-
2626 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 98), 727 So. 2d 553[,] without prejudice,
without service on the Department [ of Public Safety and Corrections] and
at Petitioner' s costs because Petitioner requested review with this
Court of multiple rina/ agency decisions and failed to designate a
single decision for review in this suit, ( Emphasis added.)
Mr. Holder appeals the district court's screening judgment.
DISCUSSION
An offender aggrieved by an adverse decision of the Department of Public Safety
and Corrections rendered pursuant to any administrative remedy procedures may seek
judicial review of the decision in the 19th JDC. See La. R. S. 15: 1177A. On review of the
agency decision, the district court functions as an appellate court. Brown v. La. DPSC,
15- 1958 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 19/ 16), 277 So. 3d 326, 329. Its review shall be confined to
the record and shall be limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the
ARP request filed at the agency level. La. R. S. 15: 1177A( 5). On review of the district
court's judgment under La. R. S. 15: 1177, an appellate court owes no deference to the
district court' s factual findings or legal conclusions. Williams v. La. DPSC, 18- 0268 ( La.
App. 1 Cir. 9/ 21/ 18), 257 So. 3d 690, 692- 93.
2 The other defendants Mr. Holder names in his petition are apparently prison officials he claims also
wronged him. Other than RN Allen, Dr. Macmurdo, and a nurse identified as Justin Blades, who are
named in ARP # s DCI 2018- 88 and DCI 2018- 294, we are unable to discern whether Mr. Holder has
named these additional defendants in specific ARPs. We also note that, although the petition herein
names defendants as shown in the suit caption, the only proper party defendant is the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections. See La. R. S. 15: 1177A( 1)( b); Black v. Heyse, 13- 0652 ( La.
App. 1 Cir. 5/ 19/ 14), 2014 WL 3534013 * 1, n. 1.
3
We first note that the Commissioner properly ordered Mr. Holder to designate
which one of the two challenged ARPs he wanted the district court to review. Accord
Turner v. La. DPSC, 15- 0026 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 18/ 15), 2015 WL 5515269 * 2 and
Mahogany v. Stalder, 08- 0517 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 23/ 08), 2008 WL 4332333 * 1. Further,
in Lightfoot v. Stader, 97- 2626 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 98), 727 So. 2d 553, this Court
affirmed the dismissal of an inmate' s petition for judicial review, because he failed to
comply with a commissioner's order to select one of six ARPs for judicial review. The
Lightfoot court explained that allowing an inmate to request review of more than one
adverse decision in the same petition would call into question timeliness issues and
unnecessarily complicate the reviewing court's role on review. Id. at 555. The 19th JDC
and this Court have routinely followed Lightfoot by similarly requiring inmates to limit
petitions for judicial review to a single ARP. For example, see Fields v. La. DPSC, 16-
0762 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 17/ 17), 2017 WL 915326 * 2; Coleman v. Ranatza, 15- 0759 ( La.
App. 1 Cir. 4/ 15/ 16), 2016 WL 1535412 * 4; Hawkins v. La. DPSC, 13- 1309 ( La. App. 1
Cir. 5/ 22/ 14), 2014 WL 2168746 * 3; Orange v. LeBlanc, 11- 1084 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
12/ 21/ 11), 2011 WL 6776840 * 1; and, Goodin v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 11-
0673 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 9/ 11), 79 So. 3d 1076, 1080.
After a de novo review, however, we conclude the district court in this case erred
in finding that Mr. Holder failed to designate a single ARP for decision in his petition for
judicial review. On March 20, 2019, the Commissioner issued the Multiple Claims Order
ordering Mr. Holder to identify which ARP he wanted the district court to review. On
April 4, 2019, Mr. Holder filed a response, in which he objected to the Court's limitation
of his lawsuit, but stated:
T] he petitioner will [ prefer] that the courts shall file the administrative
procedure identified under DCI -2018- 88, DCI -2018- 294, which everARP
that the RN Ms Laura Allen, and the Doctor Macmurdo, is
alleged in ,,, ."( Emphasis added.)
Although inartfully drafted, Mr. Holder's above statement does reasonably
identify ARP # DCI -2018- 88 as the ARP he wants the district court to review. The
statement specifies that he wants to pursue whichever ARP involves his claims against
GI
RN Allen and Dr. Macmurdo. ARP # DCI -2018- 88 is the ARP wherein Mr. Holder claims
RN Allen mistreated him and wherein the record shows he argued with Dr. Macmurdo
regarding his duty status. On the other hand, ARP # DCI -2018- 294 does not involve
claims by Mr. Holder against either RN Allen or Dr. Macmurdo. Rather, it involves
unrelated issues and persons. Thus, we find Mr. Holder did comply with the
Commissioner's order to designate which ARP he wanted the district court to review,
and the district court erred in dismissing his appeal. We reverse the screening
judgment and remand this matter for the district court's consideration of ARP # DCI -
K :::
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the July 7, 2019 judgment dismissing Dexter
Holder' s petition for judicial review. We remand this matter for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. We assess no appeal costs in this pauper suit.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
5