Ronald Lynn Warren v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 19, 2021
• Docket: 2020CA0247
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 CA 0247

UX" RONALD LYNN WARREN

VERSUS Pr UUINIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered: FEB 1 9 2021

On Appeal from the 19' Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 688340

Honorable Janice G. Clark, Judge Presiding

Jonathan R. Vining Attorney for Defendant -Appellee, Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Ronald Lynn Warren Plaintiff A - ppellant, Angie, LA In Proper Person

BEFORE: THERIOT, WOLFE, HESTER, JJ. HESTER, J.

Ronald Lynn Warren, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department

of Public Safety and Corrections (" DPSC"), appeals a judgment of the district court

dismissing his suit for judicial review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In this matter, petitioner alleges that multiple prison officials willfully

neglected his needs and requests for protection while in the care and custody of

DPSC on or about January 3, 2019. Petitioner requested that the prison officials be

reprimanded according to their alleged dereliction of duty and also sought

compensation for his resulting pain and mental anguish. Utilizing the prescribed

administrative procedures remedies, petitioner sought relief (Case No. RCC -2019-

170), which relief was denied. A petition for judicial review was filed in the

Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge on September

23, 2019 after petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies.

In accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1178 and La. R.S. 15: 1188, petitioner' s suit

was screened by the commissioner of the district court to identify cognizable claims

or to dismiss the petition, or any portion of the petition, if the petition was frivolous,

malicious, failed to state a cause of action, sought monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief, or failed to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Upon review, the commissioner determined that this matter was governed

by the Louisiana Prison Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA"), La. R.S. 15: 1181 et seq.,

and the scope of its review was limited by the exclusive venue set forth in La. R.S.

15: 1184( F). The exclusive venue for delictual actions for injury or damages is in

the parish where the prison is situated to which the prisoner was assigned when the

cause of action arose, which in this case was Rayburn Correctional Center in

Washington Parish. Accordingly, the commissioner concluded that Washington

Parish, and not East Baton Rouge Parish, was the proper and exclusive venue. La.

2 R.S. 15: 1184( F). The commissioner also acknowledged additional defects in

petitioner' s suit, namely that it failed to specify the precise harm he sustained as

result of the willful neglect and that the petition was not in the proper mode for

ordinary suits. The commissioner' s screening recommendation was to dismiss the

petition for judicial review without service on DPSC, without prejudice, and at

petitioner' s cost.

Thereafter, the district court adopted the commissioner' s written

recommendation. In a judgment dated November 27, 2019, the district court

dismissed petitioner' s suit for judicial review without service on DPSC, without

prejudice, and at petitioner' s cost because it was filed in an improper venue.

Petitioner now appeals and assigns as error the district court' s adoption of the written

recommendation of the commissioner.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of the PLRA, La. R.S. 15: 1181, et seq., is to provide for civil

actions with respect to prison conditions or effects of officials' actions on prisoners'

lives. Frederick v. Ieyoub, 99- 0616 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 12/ 00), 762 So. 2d 144,

150, writ denied, 2000- 1811 ( La. 4/ 12/ 01), 789 So. 2d 581. 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). Prisoner suits are subject

to the administrative procedures of Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy

Procedure Act (" CARP"), La. R.S. 15: 1171, et seq., which must be exhausted prior

to filing suit in district court. La. R.S. 15: 1184( A)( 2); also see Alonzo v. Cain,

2014- 0172 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 19/ 14), 154 So. 3d 551, 554, writ denied, 2014- 2165

La. 12/ 8/ 14); 153 So. 3d 445. The PLRA further provides that exclusive venue for

1 Notwithstanding, a prisoner suit does not include post -conviction relief or habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison. La. R.S. 15: 1181( 2). 3 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).

The administrative remedy procedure set forth in CARP 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, 154 So. 3d at

553; 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 Nineteenth Judicial District Court;

however, this provision specifically excludes administrative decisions relative to

delictual actions for injury or damages. 2 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. 11/ 2/ 12), 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.

In view of the record and the applicable law, we find no error in the written

recommendation of the commissioner or the district court' s adoption thereof. While

petitioner filed his petition for judicial review pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 1177 after

exhausting his administrative remedies pursuant to CARP, petitioner' s delictual

action for injury and damages is not governed by the judicial review process set forth

in La. R.S. 15: 1177. Petitioner was required to file an original civil action to assert

his tort claims. La. R.S. 15: 1177( C); Foster, 111 So. 3d at 82. This suit is aprisoner

suit as that term is defined in La. R.S. 15: 1181( 2), as petitioner claimed that certain

2 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, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 89, § 2.

11 prison officials willfully neglected his needs and requests for protection while in the

care and custody of DPSC.

Pursuant to La. R. S. 15: 1184( F), the exclusive venue for delictual actions for

injury or damages is the parish where the prison is situated to which the prisoner was

assigned when the cause of action arose. 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 to a court of proper venue or dismiss the suit.

La. R.S. 15: 1184( B); Foster, 111 So. 3d at 83. Washington Parish, the location of

Rayburn Correctional Center, is the parish where petitioner was incarcerated when

the cause of action arose and is the exclusive venue for this action. Therefore, East

Baton Rouge Parish, where petitioner filed his action, is a parish of improper venue,

and the district court did not err in adopting the commissioner' s screening

recommendation and dismissing the suit without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court' s November 27, 2019 judgment

is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are assessed to petitioner, Ronald Lynn Warren.

AFFIRMED.

I