Allen Bridget, Sr. v. John Crawford, M. D.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 6, 2013
• Docket: CA-0012-1220
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1220

ALLEN BRIDGET, SR.

VERSUS

JOHN CRAWFORD, M. D., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF BEAUREGARD, NO. C-2011-1069 DIV. A HONORABLE MARTHA ANN O'NEAL, DISTRICT JUDGE

SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Shannon J. Gremillion, and John E. Conery, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Allen Bridget, Sr. Louisiana State Penitentiary Camp C- Bear 2 Angola, LA 70712 IN PROPER PERSON

Michael W. Landry Assistant Attorney General One Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1200 Lake Charles, LA 70629 (337) 491-2880 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: James LeBlanc John Crawford, M. D. Warden Robert Henderson Delanie Burgess Julie Bordelon Tammie Arrant GREMILLION, Judge.

Allen Bridget, Sr., appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. §1983 on the defendants’/appellees’ exception of prescription.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS

Bridget has allegedly suffered from asthma for many years. In September

2008, he was an inmate at Phelps Correctional Center (Phelps) in DeQuincy,

Louisiana. He sought special duty status because of his asthma but was denied that

change on September 5, 2008, by Dr. John Crawford. Pursuant to the Corrections

Administrative Remedies Procedure Act, La.R.S. 15:1171, et seq. (CARP), Bridget

sought to have Dr. Crawford’s decision overturned. His appeal was denied at both

of the two tiers of review provided in La.R.S. 15:1171 and 1172.

On August 4, 2009, Bridget filed a petition in the 19th Judicial District

Court seeking judicial review of this determination and seeking damages. The trial

court ruled in favor of Bridget and ordered Dr. Crawford to review Bridget’s

medical history and duty status and to personally evaluate Bridget’s current

condition. Dr. Crawford was also ordered to generate a written report with a

treatment plan and any duty restrictions necessitated by Bridget’s medical

condition. All other demands were dismissed by that judgment, which was signed

on July 19, 2010.

In a separate incident, Bridget presented to medical personnel on November

30, 2008, complaining of respiratory distress. He asserted that he had missed

thirteen of his fifty-eight prescribed doses of medication for his asthma. Bridget

was disciplined for malingering because the nurse who administered his

medications attested that she had, in fact, administered them to him. Bridget

received extra duty and lost some of his credit for “good time.” He again sought administrative review and was again rebuffed. The final determination of that

review was rendered on May 7, 2009.

On November 23, 2011, Bridget filed the present tort suit against a number

of defendants including Dr. Crawford and other medical personnel at Phelps,

Warden James Henderson, James LeBlanc, Secretary of the Department of Public

Safety and Corrections, and Delanie Burgess, the secretary’s designee who

rendered the final determination of Bridget’s administrative procedures review.

The defendants responded with an exception of prescription. The trial court

maintained the exception and dismissed Bridget’s demands.

Bridget appealed the dismissal. He urges that the judgment was obtained by

fraud or ill practices and that his alleged filing of a suit in federal district court

precluded the determination that the matter was prescribed.

ANALYSIS

The annulment of a judgment on the grounds of fraud or ill practices is

governed by La.Code Civ.P. art. 2004. That article provides that a judgment so

obtained may be annulled. Such an action must be filed within one year of when

the plaintiff discovers the fraud or ill practices. Article 2006 of the Code of Civil

Procedure provides that an action for annulment of a judgment obtained by fraud

or ill practices must be filed in the trial court. An appeal is not a substitute for

filing an action to annul. Lowe’s Home Const., LLC v. Lips, 10-762 (La.App. 5 Cir.

1/25/11), 61 So.3d 12, writ denied, 11-371 (La. 4/25/11), 62 So.3d 89.

Accordingly, we cannot address this contention by Bridget.

The record contains no indication that Bridget has filed any action in federal

district court. Therefore, we have no evidence in the record to substantiate that

such a filing, if it exists, has any bearing on the claims asserted in Bridget’s suit.

We must consider his claim on its own merit. 2 All actions for monetary, injunctive, declaratory relief, including actions

over conditions of confinement, personal injuries, medical malpractice,

computation of time, and challenges to rules, regulations, policies, or statutes,

brought by adult or juvenile offenders against the state or other authorities who

operate prison facilities are subject to CARP. La.R.S. 15:1171(B). An offender

must exhaust his administrative remedies before any cause of action may be heard

in federal or state court. La.R.S. 15:1176. The filing of a complaint or grievance

pursuant to CARP suspends the tolling of liberative prescription for any delictual

action for injury or damages arising from the claims asserted in the complaint or

grievance. La.R.S. 15:1172(E). That suspension of prescription continues until

the agency’s final determination is delivered. Id.

Against this statutory backdrop, Bridget’s petition is facially prescribed.

The actions he complains of occurred on November 30, 2008. Bridget sought

administrative review on January 25, 2009. The agency’s final determination was

delivered on May 7, 2009. Bridget’s petition was filed on November 23, 2011,

more than two years after the final determination. Actions under 42 U.S.C. §1983

are governed by the applicable prescriptive periods or statutes of limitations of the

forum state. Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1990). The applicable

prescriptive period for delictual actions is one year from the day injury or damage

is sustained. La.Civ.Code art. 3492.

“The period of suspension is not counted toward accrual of prescription.

Prescription commences to run again upon the termination of the period of

suspension.” La.Civ.Code art. 3472. Thus, the prescriptive period began on

November 30, 2008, and was suspended on January 25, 2009. Fifty-five days

3 counted toward the accrual of prescription. Suspension of the prescriptive period

ended on May 7, 2009. Thus, prescription tolled on March 15, 2010.1

The record does not reflect any other action that would have suspended or

interrupted prescription on Bridget’s demands. The judgment of the trial court is

affirmed. All costs of this appeal are taxed to Appellant, Allen Bridget, Sr.

1 Fifty-five days between November 30, 2008 and January 25, 2009, plus 238 days between May 7, 2009 and December 31, 2009, plus seventy-two days between January 1, 2010 and March 13, 2010. March 13 was a Saturday, so prescription would not toll until Monday, March 15. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 5059. 4