Aldolphus Wilson v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: May 11, 2020
• Docket: 2019CA1358
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2019 CA 1358

ALDOLPHUS WILSON, SR. D. O. C. # 731398 1 LIZ VERSUS

JAMES M. LEBLANC, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

Judgment Rendered. MAY 1 12020

Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit No. C683384

The Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding

Aldolphus Wilson, Sr. Plaintiff/Appellant Raceland, Louisiana In Proper Person

Debra A. Rutledge Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. LANIER, J.

Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections (" DPSC"), challenges the district court's July 22, 2019

judgment, which sustained the DPSC' s exception raising the objection of no cause

of action, affirmed a decision of the DPSC Disciplinary Board, and dismissed, with

prejudice, his petition for judicial review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 9, 2019, Aldolphus Wilson was issued a disciplinary report for

violating Rule # 5 ( Aggravated Disobedience). Following a hearing, the DPSC

Disciplinary Board found Wilson guilty and sentenced him to 2 weeks loss of

yard/ recreation privileges. After exhausting his administrative remedies,

Wilson filed a petition for judicial review in the 19th Judicial District Court,

seeking review of the disciplinary action.

The DPSC responded to the petition with an exception raising the objection

of no cause of action. Noting that Wilson had suffered no significant deprivation

of his rights, the DPSC argued that his petition did not state a cause of action. The

matter was then referred to a commissioner for review. After considering the

record, the commissioner recommended that the DPSC' s exception be sustained,

that the disciplinary action be affirmed, and that Wilson' s appeal be dismissed,

with prejudice. Wilson timely filed a traversal of that recommendation, reiterating

his arguments to the court. On July 22, 2019, the district court signed a judgment,

sustaining the DPSC' s exception raising the objection of no cause of action,

affirming the decision of the DPSC' s Disciplinary Board, and dismissing, with

prejudice, Wilson' s petition for judicial review. This appeal followed.

2 DISCUSSION

Under the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act, La.

R.S. 15: 1171 et seq., a reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency decision

only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced," because the

administrative decisions or findings are: ( 1) in violation of constitutional or

statutory provisions; ( 2) in excess of the agency's statutory authority; ( 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). Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary

withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the

considerations underlying our penal system. Discipline by prison officials in

response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected parameters of the

sentence imposed by a court of law. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485, 115

S. Ct. 22931 23015 132 L.Ed.2d 418 ( 1995). Thus, for Wilson' s petition to state a

cognizable claim for judicial review of a disciplinary matter, the petition must

allege facts demonstrating that the agency's decision prejudiced his " substantial

rights." See Giles v. Cain, 99- 1201 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 23/ 00), 762 So. 2d 734, 738.

In the instant case, the commissioner concluded as follows:

In this case, the penalty imposed was two ( 2) weeks loss of yard/ recreation. The Petitioner was afforded a hearing and an appeal of the ruling to the Warden and the Secretary. Considering the nature of the penalty, and the fact that it does not affect the length of the Petitioner' s sentence or present any other drastic departure from expected prison life, the Petitioner fails to set forth a substantial right violation which would authorize this Court to intervene and reverse the Agency' s decision. Consequently, this Court has no authority to review the claims raised based on the allegations made. This suit must be dismissed because it is without a basis in law or fact. Based on my analysis herein, my formal recommendation follows.

3 Having considered the entire record and the applicable law, I find that the Petitioner not only fails to show that the decision of the disciplinary board was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly erroneous in violation of any of his rights, but also fails to show that this court can grant him any relief that he requests. Therefore, I recommend that the Department's Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action be sustained, the disciplinary decision be affirmed and that this appeal be dismissed with prejudice at Petitioner's costs. [ Footnotes omitted.]

As noted by the commissioner, the subject disciplinary proceedings resulted

in a temporary loss of yard/recreation privileges. It is well settled that a loss of

yard/ recreation privileges does not constitute an atypical or significant hardship in

relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life and do not prejudice an inmate' s

substantial rights. See Dorsey v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and

Corrections, 2018- 0416 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 24/ 18), 259 So. 3d 369, 371, and cases

cited therein. Because Wilson' s loss of yard/ recreation privileges does not affect

his substantial rights, the district court did not err in dismissing, with prejudice,

Wilson's petition for judicial review. See La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9). After a

thorough review of the record, in consideration of Wilson' s arguments on appeal,

and applying the relevant law and jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse

of discretion by the district court in adopting, as its own, the commissioner' s report.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's July 22,

2019 judgment and find that the district court's reasons for judgment, as set forth in

the commissioner's recommendation, adequately explain the decision. We assess

all costs associated with this appeal against petitioner, Aldolphus Wilson.

AFFIRMED.