STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2020 CA 0481
ERIC HAMILTON
VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered: MAY 2 6 2021
On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. C693116
Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
Eric Hamilton Plaintiff/ Appellant Angola, Louisiana In Proper Person
Jonathan R. Vining Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY, McCLENDON, LANIER, AND HESTER, JJ. McCLENDON, J.
In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges the district court's screening judgment,
which dismissed his petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. For the following reasons, we
reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Eric Hamilton, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola ( Department), completed a
lost property claim form on November 14, 2019, stating that upon his return to Angola
on November 13, 2019, he learned that two locker boxes containing his personal
property had been lost or misplaced. The Department acknowledged receipt of
Hamilton' s claim on December 13, 2019, and on December 18, 2019, it informed Mr.
Hamilton that his request for relief had been rejected because it was untimely filed.
Specifically, the Department stated that Mr. Hamilton had ten days from the date of the
loss, which he identified as November 13, 2019, to file his claim, and because his claim
was " received in this office on 12/ 13/ 19," it was untimely.
After receiving the Department's response, Mr. Hamilton filed a petition for
judicial review of the Department's decision. In his petition, Mr. Hamilton specifically
asserted that on November 14, 2019, he submitted a lost property claim via the Farm
Mail, but that he was " not provided a receipt or any reliable method for proving the
date he submitted his Lost Property Claim." Mr. Hamilton stated that his claim was
timely submitted within the required ten days, but that, between November 14, 2019,
and December 13, 2019, his lost property claim " languished somewhere" between the
Farm Mail box and the Department's mailroom before it was picked up by the mail
department' s employees. Mr. Hamilton further alleged that the Department has failed
to implement a method of providing to prisoners " a meaningful way to carry their
burden of proof" to show that their lost property claims are timely submitted and that
because of the Farm Mail deficiencies, the Department has not provided a meaningful
K remedy to inmates as required by the Louisiana Administrative Code.' Therefore,
according to Mr. Hamilton, the decision to reject his lost property claim was arbitrary
and capricious, unreasonable, and an abuse of discretion. z
Thereafter, pursuant to the screening requirements found in LSA- R. S. 15: 1178
and R. S. 15: 1184- 88, a commissioner with the district court screened Mr. Hamilton' s
petition to determine if Mr. Hamilton stated a cause of action or cognizable claim and
whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. As a result of the screening,
the commissioner stated it was constrained to find that Mr. Hamilton failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies prior to filing his petition for judicial review, and, as such,
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claim.
Thereafter, following a de novo consideration of the pleadings and Mr.
Hamilton' s traversal, the district court signed a judgment adopting the commissioner's
written recommendation and ordering that Mr. Hamilton' s petition for judicial review be
dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on a failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. Hamilton appealed.
DISCUSSION
Section 325 of Title 22, Part 1 of the Louisiana Administrative Code outlines the
rules and procedures to be followed in formally addressing inmate complaints under the
general Administrative Remedy Procedure ( ARP) process. However, the general ARP
procedure does not apply to claims for lost property. Rather, there are specialized
administrative remedy procedures in place for lost property claims. See LAC
22: 1. 325I( 1)( c)( i)( b)( ii); LAC 22: 1. 325L; Dillon v. Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, 20- 0484 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 30/ 20), So. 3d .
Specific to lost property claims, LAC 22: 1. 325L provides in pertinent part:
1. The purpose of this section is to establish a uniform procedure for handling lost property claims filed by offenders in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Each warden is responsible for ensuring that appropriate unit written policy and procedures are in
Mr. Hamilton refers to the purpose of the administrative remedy procedure that "offenders shall receive reasonable responses and where appropriate, meaningful remedies." See LAC 22: 1. 325D( 3).
2 Mr. Hamilton also alleged that the deprivation of his personal property without a proper procedure for review is " violative of substantive and procedural due process in violation of La. Const. Art. 1, Section 2 and U. S. C. A. 14."
3 place to comply with the provisions of this procedure and for advising offenders and affected employees of its contents.
a. When an offender suffers a loss of personal property, he may submit a lost personal property claim ( form B -05- 005- A) to the warden or designee. The claim shall include the date the loss occurred, a full statement of the circumstances which resulted in the loss of property, a list of the items which are missing, the value of each lost item and any proof of ownership or value of the property available to the offender. All claims for lost personal property must be submitted to the warden or designee within 10 days of discovery of the loss.
Emphasis added).
In this matter, the record shows that Mr. Hamilton alleged that he submitted
his lost property claim on November 14, 2019, via the Farm Mail. However, the record
reveals only that the Department did not receive the claim within ten days. Further,
the record is devoid of any finding by the Department, the commissioner, or the district
court as to when Mr. Hamilton' s claim was submitted. 3 Given the inadequacy in the
record, we cannot determine if Mr. Hamilton timely submitted his claim for lost
property. Under these circumstances, we must reverse the district court's screening
judgment, which dismissed Mr. Hamilton' s claims pursuant to LSA- R. S. 15: 1172, and
remand this matter to the district court for a determination as to when Mr. Hamilton
submitted his lost property claim, in accordance with the clear provisions of LAC
22: 1. 325L.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the district court's February 18, 2020
screening judgment, which dismissed Mr. Hamilton' s petition for judicial review for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, and remand the matter to the district court for a
determination as to when Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2020 CA 0481
ERIC HAMILTON
VERSUS
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Judgment Rendered: MAY 2 6 2021
On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. C693116
Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
Eric Hamilton Plaintiff/ Appellant Angola, Louisiana In Proper Person
Jonathan R. Vining Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY, McCLENDON, LANIER, AND HESTER, JJ. McCLENDON, J.
In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges the district court's screening judgment,
which dismissed his petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. For the following reasons, we
reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Eric Hamilton, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola ( Department), completed a
lost property claim form on November 14, 2019, stating that upon his return to Angola
on November 13, 2019, he learned that two locker boxes containing his personal
property had been lost or misplaced. The Department acknowledged receipt of
Hamilton' s claim on December 13, 2019, and on December 18, 2019, it informed Mr.
Hamilton that his request for relief had been rejected because it was untimely filed.
Specifically, the Department stated that Mr. Hamilton had ten days from the date of the
loss, which he identified as November 13, 2019, to file his claim, and because his claim
was " received in this office on 12/ 13/ 19," it was untimely.
After receiving the Department's response, Mr. Hamilton filed a petition for
judicial review of the Department's decision. In his petition, Mr. Hamilton specifically
asserted that on November 14, 2019, he submitted a lost property claim via the Farm
Mail, but that he was " not provided a receipt or any reliable method for proving the
date he submitted his Lost Property Claim." Mr. Hamilton stated that his claim was
timely submitted within the required ten days, but that, between November 14, 2019,
and December 13, 2019, his lost property claim " languished somewhere" between the
Farm Mail box and the Department's mailroom before it was picked up by the mail
department' s employees. Mr. Hamilton further alleged that the Department has failed
to implement a method of providing to prisoners " a meaningful way to carry their
burden of proof" to show that their lost property claims are timely submitted and that
because of the Farm Mail deficiencies, the Department has not provided a meaningful
K remedy to inmates as required by the Louisiana Administrative Code.' Therefore,
according to Mr. Hamilton, the decision to reject his lost property claim was arbitrary
and capricious, unreasonable, and an abuse of discretion. z
Thereafter, pursuant to the screening requirements found in LSA- R. S. 15: 1178
and R. S. 15: 1184- 88, a commissioner with the district court screened Mr. Hamilton' s
petition to determine if Mr. Hamilton stated a cause of action or cognizable claim and
whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. As a result of the screening,
the commissioner stated it was constrained to find that Mr. Hamilton failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies prior to filing his petition for judicial review, and, as such,
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claim.
Thereafter, following a de novo consideration of the pleadings and Mr.
Hamilton' s traversal, the district court signed a judgment adopting the commissioner's
written recommendation and ordering that Mr. Hamilton' s petition for judicial review be
dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on a failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. Hamilton appealed.
DISCUSSION
Section 325 of Title 22, Part 1 of the Louisiana Administrative Code outlines the
rules and procedures to be followed in formally addressing inmate complaints under the
general Administrative Remedy Procedure ( ARP) process. However, the general ARP
procedure does not apply to claims for lost property. Rather, there are specialized
administrative remedy procedures in place for lost property claims. See LAC
22: 1. 325I( 1)( c)( i)( b)( ii); LAC 22: 1. 325L; Dillon v. Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, 20- 0484 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 30/ 20), So. 3d .
Specific to lost property claims, LAC 22: 1. 325L provides in pertinent part:
1. The purpose of this section is to establish a uniform procedure for handling lost property claims filed by offenders in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Each warden is responsible for ensuring that appropriate unit written policy and procedures are in
Mr. Hamilton refers to the purpose of the administrative remedy procedure that "offenders shall receive reasonable responses and where appropriate, meaningful remedies." See LAC 22: 1. 325D( 3).
2 Mr. Hamilton also alleged that the deprivation of his personal property without a proper procedure for review is " violative of substantive and procedural due process in violation of La. Const. Art. 1, Section 2 and U. S. C. A. 14."
3 place to comply with the provisions of this procedure and for advising offenders and affected employees of its contents.
a. When an offender suffers a loss of personal property, he may submit a lost personal property claim ( form B -05- 005- A) to the warden or designee. The claim shall include the date the loss occurred, a full statement of the circumstances which resulted in the loss of property, a list of the items which are missing, the value of each lost item and any proof of ownership or value of the property available to the offender. All claims for lost personal property must be submitted to the warden or designee within 10 days of discovery of the loss.
Emphasis added).
In this matter, the record shows that Mr. Hamilton alleged that he submitted
his lost property claim on November 14, 2019, via the Farm Mail. However, the record
reveals only that the Department did not receive the claim within ten days. Further,
the record is devoid of any finding by the Department, the commissioner, or the district
court as to when Mr. Hamilton' s claim was submitted. 3 Given the inadequacy in the
record, we cannot determine if Mr. Hamilton timely submitted his claim for lost
property. Under these circumstances, we must reverse the district court's screening
judgment, which dismissed Mr. Hamilton' s claims pursuant to LSA- R. S. 15: 1172, and
remand this matter to the district court for a determination as to when Mr. Hamilton
submitted his lost property claim, in accordance with the clear provisions of LAC
22: 1. 325L.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the district court's February 18, 2020
screening judgment, which dismissed Mr. Hamilton' s petition for judicial review for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, and remand the matter to the district court for a
determination as to when Mr. Hamilton' s lost property claim was submitted. All costs of
this appeal in the amount of $ 626. 00 are assessed against the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3 The commissioner's screening recommendation does refer to " fled," but references the date of receipt as the date filed.
11 STATE OF LOUISIANA
NUMBER 2020 CA 0481
GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
41 GUIDRY, J., dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority' s opinion reversing the district
court' s judgment. Procedures set out in the Corrections Administrative Remedy
Procedure ( CARP) provide the exclusive remedy for receiving, hearing, and
disposing of complaints and grievances by offenders against the state, the
Department, or its employees, among others, that arise while the offender is within
the custody or under the supervision of the Department. See La. R.S. 15: 1171( B);
Boudreaux v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 16- 0995, p. 4
La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 2/ 17), 222 So. 3d 63, 66. Moreover, no prisoner shall assert a
claim in district court until such administrative remedy process is completed. If an
inmate fails to exhaust available administrative remedies, the district court and the
appellate court lack subject matter jurisdiction. Collins v. Vanny, 14- 0675, p. 3 ( La.
App. 1st Cir. 1/ 15/ 15), 169 So. 3d 405, 407.
Section 325 of Title 22, Part I, of the Louisiana Administrative Code outlines
the rules and procedures to be followed in formally addressing inmate complaints
under the general ARP process. Specific to lost property claims, an offender who
suffers a loss of personal property must submit his claim to the warden or designee
1 within ten days of the discovery of the loss. La. Admin. Code 22: I § 325( L)( 1)( a).
If a claim is not timely submitted, it is subject to rejection. See La. Admin. Code
22: I § 325( 1). An offender whose claim is rejected is deemed to not have properly
exhausted his administrative remedies. See La. Admin. Code 22: I §325( iv). i
It is undisputed that Hamilton' s stated date of loss of his property was
November 13, 2019 and that his lost property claim, though dated November 14,
2019, was not received by the Department until December 13, 2019, thirty days after
the alleged date of loss. As such, his claim was rejected by the Department as
untimely. Because Hamilton' s claim was rejected as untimely, he has not properly
exhausted his administrative remedies, and the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to consider his petition for judicial review. See Jones v. State through
the Department of Corrections, 13- 0482 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 1/ 13)
2013WL5918755 * 10, writ denied, 13- 2783 ( La. 2/ 14/ 14), 132 So. 3d 965.
Because the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the
merits of Hamilton' s petition for judicial review, the district court did not and cannot
reach the main issue raised by Hamilton, which is whether the Department' s
procedures deprive him of the ability to meet his burden of proof in establishing that
his lost property claim was timely submitted. This argument is not properly
addressed pursuant to a petition for judicial review. Rather, this argument addresses
his constitutional right to access to courts, for which the district court has original
jurisdiction under Pope v. State, 99- 2559, p. 13 ( La. 6/ 29/ 01) 792 So. 2d 720.
Therefore, if Hamilton wishes to raise such a claim, he must file a separate suit in
the district court. See Carter v. Cain, 01- 2841, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 27/ 02) 828
We note that the general ARP procedure does not apply to lost property claims. Rather, lost property claims are handled through a specialized administrative remedy procedure. See La. Admin. Code 22: I § 325( L); Foster v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 12-
0349 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 2/ 12), 2012WL5386608 * 2. However, the lost property procedure does not detail what happens when a claim is rejected. Accordingly, we defer to the general ARP provisions to determine this issue.
M So. 2d 1226, 1228. Accordingly, I do not find that the district court had jurisdiction
to consider Hamilton' s argument with regard to the procedures ( or lack thereof)
implemented by the Department pursuant to his petition for judicial review, and the
district court was correct in dismissing his petition for judicial review for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.