NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2022 CA 1115
DARRIN ROBINSON
oi f VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered: MAY 18 2023
On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 0707742
Honorable Kelly Balfour, Judge Presiding
Darrin Robinson Plaintiff/Appellant, Raymond Laborde Correctional Center In Proper Person Cottonport, Louisiana
Jonathan Vining Attorneys for Defendant/ Appellee, Aisha K. Mirza Louisiana Department of Public Baton Rouge, Louisiana Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. t.,/ PENZATO, I
Darrin Robinson, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections ( DPSC), appeals a district court judgment
dismissing his petition for judicial review as moot and assessing him with the cost
of the suit. Because we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, we amend the district court' s judgment to reflect that Mr. Robinson' s
application for judicial review is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
and affirm the judgment as amended.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Robinson is an inmate housed at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center
RLCC). On June 22, 2020, he was found guilty by a legally sanctioned
Disciplinary Board of violating Rule # 1 Contraband. He was sentenced to 20 days
disciplinary segregation and 30 days forfeiture of good time. Mr. Robinson
appealed, and on July 10, 2020, it was determined that proper procedure had not
been followed, and Mr. Robinson was granted a rehearing. The rehearing was
never held.
On July 13, 2020, Mr. Robinson was found guilty by a legally sanctioned
Disciplinary Board of violating Rule # 11 Aggravated Fight and was sentenced to
30 days forfeiture of good time, 1 - week loss of canteen, and restitution in the
amount of $ 10. 00 for medical expenses. Mr. Robinson appealed. On July 22,
2020, an appeal decision was issued indicating that Mr. Robinson would be granted
a rehearing at least 24 hours after he was given a copy of the disciplinary report,
which was given to him on July 23, 2020. The rehearing was never held.
On April 6, 2021, Mr. Robinson initiated an Administrative Remedy
Procedure ( ARP No. RLCC- 2021- 202), asserting that his disciplinary convictions
had been administratively reversed, but the punishments were continuing to be
enforced, including the loss of good time credits and his continued custody in
2 disciplinary segregation. Mr. Robinson sought the following relief: " that the said
punishments be vacated, terminated, and nullified and that said reversed
convictions be expunged from [ his] record; that [ he] be IMMEDIATELY released
from maximum custody and ... returned to [ his] previous housing ..., and that [ he]
be paid a reasonable sum." On April 12, 2021, Mr. Robinson' s ARP was rejected
for the following reason: " OVER 90 DAYS DISCIPLINARY."
On May 14, 2021, Mr. Robinson filed a petition for judicial review in the
19th Nineteenth Judicial District Court ( JDC). Mr. Robinson noted that his ARP
was rejected admission into the ARP process on the grounds that over 90 days had
elapsed since the incident and the filing of the ARP grievance and that he was
challenging a disciplinary matter. Mr. Robinson argued that a " clear reading" of
ARP No. RLCC- 2021- 202 revealed that "[ t]he date of the incident in this matter is
continual' and ` on- going"' and that he was not challenging the results or action of
the disciplinary board. Rather, Mr. Robinson argued that he was challenging the
continuing enforcement of the punishment imposed on him as a result of
disciplinary convictions that were reversed. He sought expungement from his
record of the two disciplinary convictions, restoration of his good time credits, and
any other relief deemed appropriate ..., specifically in regards to [ a] damage
award in this case."
After reviewing the petition in accordance with the screening requirements
of La. R.S. 15: 1178 and 15: 1188, a 19th JDC commissioner' found that the claim
raised was a claim subject to judicial appellate review in accordance with La. R.S.
15: 1171 et seq. The commissioner ordered that the sheriff serve a copy of the
petition on DPSC, and that DPSC file any response thereto within thirty days of
k The office of commissioner of the 19th JDC 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. The commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R. S. 13: 713( C)( 5); Abbots v. LeBlanc, 2012- 1476 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3125/ 13), 115 So. 3d 504, 505 riA.
C service. DPSC filed an answer to the petition on August 19, 2021, inclusive of the
entire administrative record, contending that as of that date, Mr. Robinson was
living in general population, all good time infractions had been restored to Mr.
Robinson' s time computation, and the $ 10. 00 restitution had been refunded to Mr.
Robinson' s account. According to DPSC, no further relief was available.
Mr. Robinson filed an objection to DPSC' s answer. At a status conference
held on October 12, 2021, Mr. Robinson advised the commissioner that he had not
received any documentation showing that his disciplinary record was expunged,
that the $ 10. 00 was refunded, or that his good time was restored. The
commissioner recessed the hearing to allow DPSC to provide the requested
documentation.
On October 22, 2021, DPSC filed a notice of compliance along with an
updated master prison record showing that Mr. Robinson' s good time was restored,
his inmate banking account was refunded, and the disciplinary convictions were
expunged. A second status conference was held on May 3, 2022, at which Mr.
Robinson maintained his dissatisfaction with the relief he received despite the
On May 18, 2022, the commissioner issued a written recommendation that
the district court dismiss Mr. Robinson' s petition for judicial review as moot,
without prejudice, at Mr. Robinson' s cost. Based on DPSC' s answer and the notice
of compliance, the commissioner found that there was no further relief that could
be granted to Mr. Robinson.
On June 8, 2022, Mr. Robinson filed an objection to the commissioner' s
report and recommendation. On June 29, 2022, after a de novo consideration of
the pleadings, together with any timely filed traversal, the district court adopted the
commissioner' s recommendation and signed a judgment that dismissed Mn
Robinson' s petition for judicial review as moot, without prejudice, at Mr.
G! Robinson' s cost. Mr. Robinson appeals the judgment of the district court.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue insofar as a judgment
rendered by a court that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or
La. C. C. P. art. 3; Guy a Calvit, 2019- 1675 ( La. App. 1 Cir. proceeding is void.
815120), 311 So. 3d 362, 367.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2022 CA 1115
DARRIN ROBINSON
oi f VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered: MAY 18 2023
On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 0707742
Honorable Kelly Balfour, Judge Presiding
Darrin Robinson Plaintiff/Appellant, Raymond Laborde Correctional Center In Proper Person Cottonport, Louisiana
Jonathan Vining Attorneys for Defendant/ Appellee, Aisha K. Mirza Louisiana Department of Public Baton Rouge, Louisiana Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. t.,/ PENZATO, I
Darrin Robinson, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections ( DPSC), appeals a district court judgment
dismissing his petition for judicial review as moot and assessing him with the cost
of the suit. Because we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, we amend the district court' s judgment to reflect that Mr. Robinson' s
application for judicial review is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
and affirm the judgment as amended.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Robinson is an inmate housed at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center
RLCC). On June 22, 2020, he was found guilty by a legally sanctioned
Disciplinary Board of violating Rule # 1 Contraband. He was sentenced to 20 days
disciplinary segregation and 30 days forfeiture of good time. Mr. Robinson
appealed, and on July 10, 2020, it was determined that proper procedure had not
been followed, and Mr. Robinson was granted a rehearing. The rehearing was
never held.
On July 13, 2020, Mr. Robinson was found guilty by a legally sanctioned
Disciplinary Board of violating Rule # 11 Aggravated Fight and was sentenced to
30 days forfeiture of good time, 1 - week loss of canteen, and restitution in the
amount of $ 10. 00 for medical expenses. Mr. Robinson appealed. On July 22,
2020, an appeal decision was issued indicating that Mr. Robinson would be granted
a rehearing at least 24 hours after he was given a copy of the disciplinary report,
which was given to him on July 23, 2020. The rehearing was never held.
On April 6, 2021, Mr. Robinson initiated an Administrative Remedy
Procedure ( ARP No. RLCC- 2021- 202), asserting that his disciplinary convictions
had been administratively reversed, but the punishments were continuing to be
enforced, including the loss of good time credits and his continued custody in
2 disciplinary segregation. Mr. Robinson sought the following relief: " that the said
punishments be vacated, terminated, and nullified and that said reversed
convictions be expunged from [ his] record; that [ he] be IMMEDIATELY released
from maximum custody and ... returned to [ his] previous housing ..., and that [ he]
be paid a reasonable sum." On April 12, 2021, Mr. Robinson' s ARP was rejected
for the following reason: " OVER 90 DAYS DISCIPLINARY."
On May 14, 2021, Mr. Robinson filed a petition for judicial review in the
19th Nineteenth Judicial District Court ( JDC). Mr. Robinson noted that his ARP
was rejected admission into the ARP process on the grounds that over 90 days had
elapsed since the incident and the filing of the ARP grievance and that he was
challenging a disciplinary matter. Mr. Robinson argued that a " clear reading" of
ARP No. RLCC- 2021- 202 revealed that "[ t]he date of the incident in this matter is
continual' and ` on- going"' and that he was not challenging the results or action of
the disciplinary board. Rather, Mr. Robinson argued that he was challenging the
continuing enforcement of the punishment imposed on him as a result of
disciplinary convictions that were reversed. He sought expungement from his
record of the two disciplinary convictions, restoration of his good time credits, and
any other relief deemed appropriate ..., specifically in regards to [ a] damage
award in this case."
After reviewing the petition in accordance with the screening requirements
of La. R.S. 15: 1178 and 15: 1188, a 19th JDC commissioner' found that the claim
raised was a claim subject to judicial appellate review in accordance with La. R.S.
15: 1171 et seq. The commissioner ordered that the sheriff serve a copy of the
petition on DPSC, and that DPSC file any response thereto within thirty days of
k The office of commissioner of the 19th JDC 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. The commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R. S. 13: 713( C)( 5); Abbots v. LeBlanc, 2012- 1476 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3125/ 13), 115 So. 3d 504, 505 riA.
C service. DPSC filed an answer to the petition on August 19, 2021, inclusive of the
entire administrative record, contending that as of that date, Mr. Robinson was
living in general population, all good time infractions had been restored to Mr.
Robinson' s time computation, and the $ 10. 00 restitution had been refunded to Mr.
Robinson' s account. According to DPSC, no further relief was available.
Mr. Robinson filed an objection to DPSC' s answer. At a status conference
held on October 12, 2021, Mr. Robinson advised the commissioner that he had not
received any documentation showing that his disciplinary record was expunged,
that the $ 10. 00 was refunded, or that his good time was restored. The
commissioner recessed the hearing to allow DPSC to provide the requested
documentation.
On October 22, 2021, DPSC filed a notice of compliance along with an
updated master prison record showing that Mr. Robinson' s good time was restored,
his inmate banking account was refunded, and the disciplinary convictions were
expunged. A second status conference was held on May 3, 2022, at which Mr.
Robinson maintained his dissatisfaction with the relief he received despite the
On May 18, 2022, the commissioner issued a written recommendation that
the district court dismiss Mr. Robinson' s petition for judicial review as moot,
without prejudice, at Mr. Robinson' s cost. Based on DPSC' s answer and the notice
of compliance, the commissioner found that there was no further relief that could
be granted to Mr. Robinson.
On June 8, 2022, Mr. Robinson filed an objection to the commissioner' s
report and recommendation. On June 29, 2022, after a de novo consideration of
the pleadings, together with any timely filed traversal, the district court adopted the
commissioner' s recommendation and signed a judgment that dismissed Mn
Robinson' s petition for judicial review as moot, without prejudice, at Mr.
G! Robinson' s cost. Mr. Robinson appeals the judgment of the district court.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue insofar as a judgment
rendered by a court that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or
La. C. C. P. art. 3; Guy a Calvit, 2019- 1675 ( La. App. 1 Cir. proceeding is void.
815120), 311 So. 3d 362, 367. A court' s subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that
cannot be waived or conferred by the consent of the parties. Williams u
International Offshore Services, LLC, 2011- 1240 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1217112), 106 So.
3d 212, 217, writ denied, 2013- 0259 ( La. 318113), 109 So. 3d 367, The issue of
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even by the court on its own
motion, and at any stage of an action. Id. Appellate courts have a duty to examine
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue.
Id.
The rules and procedures governing the ARP process are set forth in Section
325 of Title 22, Part I of the Louisiana Administrative Code. Pursuant thereto, an
offender commences the formal administrative remedy process for grievances
either by completing a request for administrative remedy or by writing a letter to
the warden, in which he briefly sets out the basis for his claim, and the relief
sought. LAC 22: 1. 325. 01. a. i. Once an offender initiates the formal ARP process,
the grievance is screened prior to being assigned to the first step in the two- step
ARP process. LAC 22: I.325. 1. 1. Through the screening process, the grievance is
either accepted and processed or rejected for one of the reasons enumerated in
LAC 22: I.325. I. I. c. i( a)-( 1). An offender whose grievance is rejected during
screening for one of the enumerated reasons must correct the noted deficiencies
and resubmit the request to the ARP screening officer. LAC 22: I.325. I. 1. c. iii.
The ARP process must be exhausted before an offender may proceed with a
suit in federal or state court. Allen v Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
5 Corrections, 2020- 0445 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2119121), 320 So. 3d 1175, 1177. A
request for an ARP that is rejected for any of the enumerated reasons in LAC
22: I.325. I. 1. c. i( a)-( 1) is not appealable to the second step, and an offender has not
properly exhausted his administrative remedies if his request is rejected during
grievance screening. LAC 22: I. 325. F.3. a. viii and 22: I.325. I. 1. c. iii-iv. If an
offender fails to exhaust available administrative remedies, the district court and
the appellate court lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim. Allen, 320
So. 3d at 1177; Guy, 311 So. 3d at 366.
In this case, Mr. Robinson' s ARP No. RLCC- 2021- 202 was rejected
pursuant to LAC 22: 1. 325. 1. 1. c. i( i) and 22: I. 325. 1. 1. c.( b)( i) because it was
determined that it was untimely and a disciplinary matter. Mr. Robinson' s only
option at that point was to " correct the noted deficiencies and resubmit the request
to the ARP screening officer." LAC 22: 1. 325. I. 1. c. ni. See Allen, 320 So. 3d at
1177. However, Mr. Robinson did not resubmit his request as required, but filed a
petition for judicial review.
Offenders are required to use and complete all steps in the ARP properly,
including obeying all rules of the procedural process. LAC 22: I.325. D.1; Allen,
320 So. 3d at 1178. Since Mr. Robinson' s ARP was rejected during screening and
he did not resubmit a request for an ARP with the noted deficiencies corrected, his
request for an ARP was never accepted for consideration, and as such, his
administrative remedies could not be exhausted. See LAC 22: I.325. F.3. a. viii. As
Mr. Robinson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the ARF, the
district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review Mr. Robinson' s
grievance. See Allen, 320 So. 3d at 1178.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we amend the district court' s June 29, 2022
judgment to reflect that Darrin Robinson' s application for judicial review of ARP
0 No. RLCC- 2021- 202 is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
judgment is affirmed as amended. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Darrin
Robinson.
JUDGMENT AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.