Robert Collins v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 16, 2021
• Docket: 2020CA0958
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 CA 0958

ROBERT COLLINS

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered. APR 16 2021

Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. C669861

The Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding

Robert Collins Plaintiff/Appellant Jackson, Louisiana Pro Se

Elizabeth B. Desselle Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

BEFORE; THERIOT, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ. THERIOT, J.

Robert Collins appeals the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s judgment

rendered on May 26, 2020. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robert Collins (" Appellant") is an inmate at Dixon Correctional Institute in

Jackson, Louisiana. On May 30, 2018, Appellant filed a petition for judicial 1 review of Administrative Remedy Procedure (" ARP") No. HDQ- 2017- 1572. He

named James LeBlanc and Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

DPSC") as defendants. In his petition for judicial review, Appellant alleged that

he was entitled to 360 days of Certified Treatment and Rehabilitation Program

CTRP") credits. In addition to 360 days of CTRP credits, Appellant also sought

5, 000. 00 plus court costs and any fees.

According to the record, Appellant previously filed a step one grievance on

July 31, 2017, alleging that he was owed 360 days of diminution of sentence. On

September 8, 2017, Appellant filed a step two grievance, alleging that he had not

received a response to his step one grievance and now seeking 195 days of

diminution of sentence. Appellant' s request was denied. The second step response

form to ARP No. HDQ-2017- 1572 states that "[ o] ffenders must be eligible to earn

good time, diminution of sentence or qualify pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 571. 3( E) in

order to be approved to earn CTRP credits. Act 1209 does not qualify for CTRP

credit as stated in [ La. R.S.] 15: 571. 3 and [ La. R.S.] 15: 828." ( Internal quotation

marks omitted.)

1 Appellant' s petition for judicial review also sought review of ARP No. HDQ-2018- 0272. However, the documents filed in response to Appellant' s petition only reference ARP No. HDQ-2017- 1572. Regardless, inmates may only seek judicial review of one administrative remedy procedure per lawsuit or petition. See Lightfoot v. Stalder, 97- 2626 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 98); 727 So.2d 553, 554- 55.

2 On July 2, 2018, after Appellant filed the instant petition for judicial review,

the Commissioner of the 19" JDC ordered that a copy of the petition be served

upon LeBlanc. LeBlanc answered the petition on August 7, 2018, asserting that

Appellant had been convicted of pornography involving juveniles, which falls 3 under " Act 1209." Accordingly, LeBlanc stated that Appellant is not eligible to

earn diminution of his sentence, including CTRP credits.

On March 6, 2020, the Commissioner issued a report in which she

recommended that Appellant' s suit be dismissed with prejudice and that all

outstanding motions filed by Appellant in the pending lawsuit be dismissed. The

Commissioner first noted that, per La. R.S. 15: 1177( C) and Pope v. State, 1999-

2559 ( La. 6/ 29/ 01); 792 So. 2d 713, relief in the form of an award of monetary

damages is not available via the petition for judicial review process. Regarding

Appellant' s request for CTRP credits, the Commissioner reviewed the applicable

statutes and concluded that " only offenders who are eligible to earn good time for

good behavior may also earn additional CTRP credits towards a good time release

date." The Commissioner further stated that, pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 537 ( referred

to in the report as Act 1209), Appellant is not eligible for diminution of sentence

for good behavior because his underlying offense was a sex offense.

Accordingly, on May 26, 2020, the 19" JDC signed a judgment affirming

DPSC' s decision in ARP No. HDQ-2017- 1572 and dismissing Appellant' s appeal,

with prejudice, at Appellant' s cost. The 19th JDC adopted the Commissioner' s

Report as reasons. The May 26, 2020 judgment also dismissed all subsequent

motions filed by Appellant into the record, as they are beyond the scope of the 19"

JDC' s judicial review. This appeal followed.

2 The office of the 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. Hakim- El- Mumit v. Stalder, 2003- 2549 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 10/ 29/ 04); 897 So. 2d 112, 113 n. 1.

Act 1209 is also known as La. R.S. 15: 537, which states in pertinent part, " If a person is convicted of or pleads guilty to ... [ La.] R.S. 14: 81. 1 ( pornography involving juveniles) ... the person shall not be eligible for diminution of sentence for good behavior."

3 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Appellant assigns the following as error:

1) The trial court misinterpreted La. R.S. 15: 537 ( Act 1209) and La. R. S. 15: 571. 3.

2) The trial court misinterpreted La. R.S. 15: 571. 3( E) and La. R.S. 15: 828( C).

3) The trial court confused the terms " good behavior" and " good

time."

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appellate review of a district court' s judgment in a suit for judicial

review under La. R.S. 15: 1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the

factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is

owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of

the court of appeal. As such, the de novo standard of review shall be applied.

Greenhouse v. Louisiana Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections, 2017- 0316

La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 1/ 17); 2017 WL 4946864, at * 2 ( unpublished), writ denied,

2017- 2122 ( La. 1/ 8/ 19); 259 So. 3d 1021.

DISCUSSION

After considering the entire record of the proceedings, the 19" JDC adopted

the Commissioner' s recommendation and signed a judgment on May 26, 2020

affirming DPSC' s decision regarding ARP No. HDQ-2017- 1572, dismissing

Appellant' s appeal with prejudice, and dismissing all subsequent motions filed by

Appellant into the record as they are beyond the scope of the trial court' s judicial

review. After a thorough review of the record of the instant appeal, we find no

error in the judgment of the 19th JDC and find that the Commissioner' s

recommendation, which the district court adopted as its own, adequately explains

the decision. Thus, we affirm the 1911 JDC' s judgment in accordance with

Uniform Rules —Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 2( A)(5), ( 6), ( 7), ( 8), and ( 10).

M DECREE

For the above and foregoing reasons, the May 26, 2020 judgment of the

Nineteenth Judicial District Court is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are assessed to

Appellant, Robert Collins.

AFFIRMED.