STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2023 CA 0098
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE SANDERS
VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered: SEP 15 2023
On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 724956
Honorable Kelly Balfour, Judge Presiding
Christopher George Sanders Plaintiff A - ppellant, Cottonport, LA Pro Se
Jonathan R. Vining Attorneys for Defendant -Appellee, Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: MCCLENDON, RESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. HESTER, J.
Christopher George Sanders, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" DPSC") and confined to the
Raymond Laborde Correctional Center (" RLCC") in Cottonport, Louisiana, appeals
a judgment of the district court dismissing, without prejudice, his petition for judicial
review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 28, 2022, Sanders was issued a disciplinary report on the basis that
he was masturbating in view of staff ( Rule 21( E) violation — sex offenses,
aggravated, obscenity), cursed at staff in response to orders to stop (Rule 5 violation
disobedience, aggravated), and refused to stop the prohibited action ( Rule 3
violation —defiance).' Following a hearing on August 29, 2022,' the disciplinary
board found Sanders guilty of and sentenced him on all three violations.' The board
reasoned that the disciplinary report was clear and precise, Sanders lacked a credible
defense, and Sanders offered little to no defense, with the only defense being a denial
of the contents of the disciplinary report. The disciplinary board also denied
Sanders' s motion to call witnesses.
Sanders appealed the disciplinary board' s action ( DBA-RLCC- 2022- 194),
and a rehearing was ordered. The rehearing was conducted on September 21, 2022,
after which the disciplinary board again found Sanders guilty of the violations and
sentenced him accordingly for the same reasons identified in the original action. The
rehearing ruling further provided reasons for the sentences imposed, noting that
1 The Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders are set forth in Title 22 ofthe Louisiana Administrative Code, Part I, Section 341. The Offender Rules and Violations Descriptions are contained in Subsection I thereof.
2 Sanders executed a " 24- HOUR WAIVER FOR DB COURT" form on August 29, 2022, indicating that he had a right to a " 24-hour notice" prior to a disciplinary hearing and was waiving that right.
3 Sanders was sentenced in accordance with the appropriate penalty schedules under the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders. See LAC 22: I: 341( K).
2 Sanders had a poor conduct record, reflecting three rule violations and a total of two
Schedule B violations in the previous twelve months.
On October 3, 2022, a memorandum was issued by Ashley Firmin in the
Deputy Warden' s Office to Internal Affairs regarding " DISCIPLINARY BOARD
APPEALS," in which she stated that Sanders was not satisfied with the appeal
decision of the Warden and had requested to appeal to the Secretary in accordance
with the conditions set forth in the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult
Offenders. See LAC 22: 1: 341( H). The case number was referenced as " RLCC-
2022- 210."
Thereafter, on October 11, 2022, Sanders sent correspondence to Ms. Firmin,
indicating he was not satisfied with his appeal in "RLCC- 2022- 194" because he was
not satisfied with the 9/ 21/ 22 Re -hearing decision." Sanders claimed that he did
not receive the Warden' s decision or any confirmation thereof relating to his request
to appeal to the Secretary concerning RLCC- 2022- 194. Handwritten on the bottom
of Sanders' s correspondence was the following notation:
RLCC- 2022- 210 was the Rehearing appeal 10/ 5/ 22 you signed for the letter sent to headquarters A Firmin
RLCC- 2022- 194 was the original appeal of the August 29, 2022 disciplinary
action, which resulted in a rehearing. It appears that the rehearing, which was
conducted on September 21, 2022, was also appealed and assigned case number
RLCC- 2022- 210. As indicated in the October 3, 2022 memorandum, this appeal
was in process; however, there is no indication in the record ofthe status of Sanders' s
request to appeal to the Secretary.¢
4 While not contained in the record of this appeal, Sanders attached the decision of the Secretary, denying his appeal in RLCC- 2022- 210, as Exhibit D to the brief filed with this court.
I Sanders' s October 11, 2022 request to Ms. Firmin does not appear to
correspond to any procedure set forth in the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for
Adult Offenders. The request was assigned as Case No. RLCC- 2022- 771 on the
Offender' s Relief Request Form and processed as a request for an administrative
remedy. The form, also dated October 11, 2022, noted that the date of the underlying
incident was September 21, 2022 ( the date of the rehearing before the disciplinary
board). According to the form, the request was rejected because it "[ s] hould have
been address [ed] through appeal."
Dissatisfied with this response, Sanders filed a petition for judicial review on
October 24, 2022 in the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East
Baton Rouge, naming DPSC and multiple employees of RLCC as defendants.
Sanders alleged that DPSC improperly denied his grievance ( RLCC- 2022- 771) on
the basis that he could not utilize administrative remedy procedures against actions
of the disciplinary board and that his complaints should have been addressed through
the appeal of his disciplinary proceedings. Through his administrative remedy
procedure (" ARP") and petition for judicial review, Sanders claimed that he was
wrongfully punished for an aggravated sex offense ( Rule 21( E)) that he did not
commit and stated that he was " asking the courts to accept [ his] petition in order to
prove [ his] case and hopefully be compensated for each day [ he' s] done on
investigative seg/preventative seg." Sanders sought compensation in the amount of
10, 000 for monetary damages, $ 10, 000 in punitive damages, $ 15, 000 for mental
anguish, and an amount to be determined by the court for every day spent in
segregation. As additional relief, Sanders seeks the placement of cameras in dorms
to ensure a safe environment, his immediate transfer back to his old quarters, the
removal of his Rule 21( E) violation from the record, and the administration of lie
detector tests on all participants and witnesses. Sanders also requested that each
4 named defendant either be sued in his or her individual capacity or that they be
relieved of duty or rank.
On November 7, 2022, the commissioner for the district court issued a
screening report to the district court judge, recommending that Sanders' s petition for
judicial review be dismissed without prejudice and without service.' The
commissioner found that the matter was " not in the proper format pursuant to R.S.
15: 1177( C) and not in the proper mandatory venue pursuant to R. S. 15: 1184( F)," as
the matter should have been filed as an original civil action. By judgment dated
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2023 CA 0098
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE SANDERS
VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered: SEP 15 2023
On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 724956
Honorable Kelly Balfour, Judge Presiding
Christopher George Sanders Plaintiff A - ppellant, Cottonport, LA Pro Se
Jonathan R. Vining Attorneys for Defendant -Appellee, Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: MCCLENDON, RESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. HESTER, J.
Christopher George Sanders, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" DPSC") and confined to the
Raymond Laborde Correctional Center (" RLCC") in Cottonport, Louisiana, appeals
a judgment of the district court dismissing, without prejudice, his petition for judicial
review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 28, 2022, Sanders was issued a disciplinary report on the basis that
he was masturbating in view of staff ( Rule 21( E) violation — sex offenses,
aggravated, obscenity), cursed at staff in response to orders to stop (Rule 5 violation
disobedience, aggravated), and refused to stop the prohibited action ( Rule 3
violation —defiance).' Following a hearing on August 29, 2022,' the disciplinary
board found Sanders guilty of and sentenced him on all three violations.' The board
reasoned that the disciplinary report was clear and precise, Sanders lacked a credible
defense, and Sanders offered little to no defense, with the only defense being a denial
of the contents of the disciplinary report. The disciplinary board also denied
Sanders' s motion to call witnesses.
Sanders appealed the disciplinary board' s action ( DBA-RLCC- 2022- 194),
and a rehearing was ordered. The rehearing was conducted on September 21, 2022,
after which the disciplinary board again found Sanders guilty of the violations and
sentenced him accordingly for the same reasons identified in the original action. The
rehearing ruling further provided reasons for the sentences imposed, noting that
1 The Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders are set forth in Title 22 ofthe Louisiana Administrative Code, Part I, Section 341. The Offender Rules and Violations Descriptions are contained in Subsection I thereof.
2 Sanders executed a " 24- HOUR WAIVER FOR DB COURT" form on August 29, 2022, indicating that he had a right to a " 24-hour notice" prior to a disciplinary hearing and was waiving that right.
3 Sanders was sentenced in accordance with the appropriate penalty schedules under the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders. See LAC 22: I: 341( K).
2 Sanders had a poor conduct record, reflecting three rule violations and a total of two
Schedule B violations in the previous twelve months.
On October 3, 2022, a memorandum was issued by Ashley Firmin in the
Deputy Warden' s Office to Internal Affairs regarding " DISCIPLINARY BOARD
APPEALS," in which she stated that Sanders was not satisfied with the appeal
decision of the Warden and had requested to appeal to the Secretary in accordance
with the conditions set forth in the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult
Offenders. See LAC 22: 1: 341( H). The case number was referenced as " RLCC-
2022- 210."
Thereafter, on October 11, 2022, Sanders sent correspondence to Ms. Firmin,
indicating he was not satisfied with his appeal in "RLCC- 2022- 194" because he was
not satisfied with the 9/ 21/ 22 Re -hearing decision." Sanders claimed that he did
not receive the Warden' s decision or any confirmation thereof relating to his request
to appeal to the Secretary concerning RLCC- 2022- 194. Handwritten on the bottom
of Sanders' s correspondence was the following notation:
RLCC- 2022- 210 was the Rehearing appeal 10/ 5/ 22 you signed for the letter sent to headquarters A Firmin
RLCC- 2022- 194 was the original appeal of the August 29, 2022 disciplinary
action, which resulted in a rehearing. It appears that the rehearing, which was
conducted on September 21, 2022, was also appealed and assigned case number
RLCC- 2022- 210. As indicated in the October 3, 2022 memorandum, this appeal
was in process; however, there is no indication in the record ofthe status of Sanders' s
request to appeal to the Secretary.¢
4 While not contained in the record of this appeal, Sanders attached the decision of the Secretary, denying his appeal in RLCC- 2022- 210, as Exhibit D to the brief filed with this court.
I Sanders' s October 11, 2022 request to Ms. Firmin does not appear to
correspond to any procedure set forth in the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for
Adult Offenders. The request was assigned as Case No. RLCC- 2022- 771 on the
Offender' s Relief Request Form and processed as a request for an administrative
remedy. The form, also dated October 11, 2022, noted that the date of the underlying
incident was September 21, 2022 ( the date of the rehearing before the disciplinary
board). According to the form, the request was rejected because it "[ s] hould have
been address [ed] through appeal."
Dissatisfied with this response, Sanders filed a petition for judicial review on
October 24, 2022 in the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East
Baton Rouge, naming DPSC and multiple employees of RLCC as defendants.
Sanders alleged that DPSC improperly denied his grievance ( RLCC- 2022- 771) on
the basis that he could not utilize administrative remedy procedures against actions
of the disciplinary board and that his complaints should have been addressed through
the appeal of his disciplinary proceedings. Through his administrative remedy
procedure (" ARP") and petition for judicial review, Sanders claimed that he was
wrongfully punished for an aggravated sex offense ( Rule 21( E)) that he did not
commit and stated that he was " asking the courts to accept [ his] petition in order to
prove [ his] case and hopefully be compensated for each day [ he' s] done on
investigative seg/preventative seg." Sanders sought compensation in the amount of
10, 000 for monetary damages, $ 10, 000 in punitive damages, $ 15, 000 for mental
anguish, and an amount to be determined by the court for every day spent in
segregation. As additional relief, Sanders seeks the placement of cameras in dorms
to ensure a safe environment, his immediate transfer back to his old quarters, the
removal of his Rule 21( E) violation from the record, and the administration of lie
detector tests on all participants and witnesses. Sanders also requested that each
4 named defendant either be sued in his or her individual capacity or that they be
relieved of duty or rank.
On November 7, 2022, the commissioner for the district court issued a
screening report to the district court judge, recommending that Sanders' s petition for
judicial review be dismissed without prejudice and without service.' The
commissioner found that the matter was " not in the proper format pursuant to R.S.
15: 1177( C) and not in the proper mandatory venue pursuant to R. S. 15: 1184( F)," as
the matter should have been filed as an original civil action. By judgment dated
November 22, 2022, the district court adopted the commissioner' s written reasons
and dismissed Sanders' s petition far judicial review without prejudice, in accordance
with the commissioner' s recommendations. From this judgment, Sanders appeals.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The Louisiana Prison Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA"), La. R.S. 15: 1181 et
seq., provides for civil actions with respect to prison conditions or effects of
officials' actions on prisoners' lives. Warren v. Louisiana Dep' t of Pub. Safety
Corr., 2020- 0247 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2119121), 320 So. 3d 453, 455. In accordance
with the PLRA, a prisoner suit is defined as " any civil proceeding with respect to the
conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the
lives of persons confined in prison." La. R.S. 15: 1181( 2). The PLRA further
provides that exclusive venue for delictual actions for injury or damages shall be the
parish where the prison is situated to which the prisoner was assigned when the cause
of action arose. La. R.S. 15: 1184( F).
s The office of commissioner of the 19`h Judicial District Court 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. La. R.S. 13: 713( A). The commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R.S. 13: 713( C)( 5). Pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 1178 and La. R.S. 15: 1188, the district court is required to screen all prisoner suits prior to requiring service on the DPSC to determine if the court has subject matter jurisdiction.
5 Prisoner suits are subject to the administrative procedures of Louisiana
Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (" CARP"), La. R.S. 15: 1171, et
seq., which is the formal grievance mechanism that all offenders committed to the
custody of DPSC must use before they may proceed with a suit in federal or state
court. Alonzo v. Cain, 2014- 0172 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9119114), 154 So. 3d 551, 553,
writ denied, 201.4- 2165 ( La. 1218114), 153 So. 3d 445; LAC 22: I: 325( D)( 1). Under
the provisions of CARP, an offender aggrieved by an adverse decision by DPSC
rendered pursuant to the prescribed administrative remedies may seek judicial
review in the 19th Judicial District Court; however, this provision specifically
excludes administrative decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages.6
La. R.S. 15: 1177( A). Delictual actions for injury or damages shall be filed
separately as original civil actions pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 1177( C). Foster v.
Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2012- 0358 ( La. App. 1st
Cir. 1112112), 111 So. 3d 81, 82. These delictual actions are reviewed de novo by the
district court after the exhaustion of the administrative remedies set forth in CARP.
Alonzo, 154 So. 3d at 554.
After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no error in
the written recommendation of the commissioner or the district court' s dismissal of
the action without prejudice. Utilizing the administrative remedies set forth in
CARP, Sanders sought relief relating to his disciplinary proceedings, including
challenging the findings and sentence imposed by the disciplinary board. Sanders
stated in his petition for judicial review that he was wrongfully punished for a
violation and requested that the court allow him to prove his case. The Disciplinary
Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders establishes disciplinary rules and
6 After the Supreme Court' s decision in Pope v. State, 99- 2559 ( La. 6/ 29/ 01), 792 So. 2d 713, the legislature amended La. R.S. 15: 1177( A) to exclude tort claims from judicial review. See 2002 La. Acts, 1 st Ex. Sess., No. 89, § 2.
AI procedures for offenders remanded to the state' s custody and includes specific
procedures for the appeals of disciplinary decisions. See LAC 22. 1: 341( F) and ( H).
As the commissioner correctly observed, Sanders' s complaints relating to the
outcome and sentence imposed in the disciplinary proceedings may only be
addressed through the disciplinary appeals process, which Sanders utilized through
RLCC- 2022- 194 and RLCC- 2022- 210.' See LAC 22: I: 341( H). The district court
did not err in finding that Sanders brought his suit in an improper format pursuant to
La. R.S. 15: 1177( C).
As a result of his alleged wrongful punishment, Sanders further sought
corrective actions, monetary damages, compensation for mental anguish, and
punitive damages for the days he spent in segregation. However, delictual actions
for injury or damages, however styled or captioned, shall be filed separately as
original civil actions pursuant to La. R.S. IS: 1177( C). Foster, 111 So. 3d at $ 2.
Accordingly, Sanders' s tort action for damages and specific relief related to his
alleged wrongful sentencing wass required to be filed as an original action for
damages and not as a petition for judicial review. Pursuant to the PLRA, the
exclusive venue for these delictual actions is the parish where the prison is situated
to which Sanders was assigned when the cause of action arose. La. R.S. 15: 1184( F).
Avoyelles Parish, the location of RLCC, is the parish where petitioner was
incarcerated when the cause of action arose and is the exclusive venue for this action.
East Baton Rouge Parish, where petitioner filed his action, is a parish of improper
venue. When a prisoner' s suit has been filed in a parish of improper venue, the court
may raise the exception of improper venue on its own motion and transfer the suit
7 Sanders appealed the original August 29, 2022 decision of the disciplinary board (RLCC- 2022- 194), which resulted in a rehearing. After the rehearing, Sanders again appealed ( RLCC- 2022- 210). The last step relating to the appeal in RLCC- 2022-210 in the record is the acknowledgment of receipt and date forwarded to the secretary' s office, but Sanders attached the denial of the appeal in RLCC- 2022- 210 as Exhibit D to the brief filed with the court. Accordingly, it appears that the disciplinary appeals process is complete.
7 to a court of proper venue or dismiss the suit. La. R.S. 15: 1184( B); Foster, 111.
So. 3d at 83. Therefore, the district court correctly found that Sanders' s suit was filed
in a parish of improper venue and did not err in dismissing the petition for judicial
review without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Finding that the district court did not err in adopting the commissioner' s
screening recommendation and dismissing the suit without prejudice, we hereby
affirm the district court' s November 22, 2022 judgment. Costs of the appeal are
assessed to petitioner, Christopher George Sanders.
AFFIRMED.