Timothy Hugh Queen v. O. S. Nugent, Asst. Warden

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 9, 2011
• Docket: CA-0010-1132
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-1130 C/W 10-1131, 10-1132

TIMOTHY HUGH QUEEN

VERSUS

O. S. NUGENT, ASST. WARDEN

consolidated with

JEFFREY MILLER, ASST. WARDEN

O.S. NUGENT, ASST. WARDEN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NOS. 2009-6080, 2010-26 AND 2010-65 HONORABLE RONALD WARE, DISTRICT JUDGE

OSWALD A. DECUIR JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Oswald A. Decuir, and Jimmie C. Peters, Judges.

AFFIRMED. Robert C. McCorquodale In House Counsel Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office 1011 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 310 Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 491-3622 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees O.S. Nugent and Jeffrey Miller in their official capacities as deputy sheriffs employed by the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office

Timothy Hugh Queen In Proper Person Calcasieu Sheriff’s Prison 5300 E. Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70615 DECUIR, Judge.

In these consolidated cases, pre-trial detainee, Timothy Hugh Queen (Queen),

appeals judgments of the trial court granting the peremptory exceptions of no cause

of action filed by defendants, employees of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office.

FACTS

Queen is housed in the Calcasieu Parish Correctional Facilities (CPCF)

awaiting trial for armed robbery and other offenses. The CPCF is operated by the

Calcasieu Parish Sheriff (Sheriff). On several instances during his stay, Queen, who

had sought “indigent inmate” status, had family members deposit funds in the names

of other inmates so that he could purchase personal items while avoiding having to

help pay for the costs of his incarceration. Queen went through an administrative

procedure and was disciplined for utilizing other inmates’ debit accounts to avoid the

indigent inmate “payback” system operating within the facility. Queen appealed the

discipline ordered in the administrative procedure to the Fourteenth Judicial District

Court naming assistant wardens, Jeffrey Miller and O.S. Nugent, as defendants.

Defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action which were granted by the

trial court. Queen lodged these appeals.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Queen contends the trial court erred in granting the exceptions of

no cause of action. Specifically, Queen contends the trial court erred in finding that

he was not entitled to judicial review under La.R.S. 15:1177.

The defendants contend that there is no provision for judicial review of a

decision under a sheriff’s administrative remedy procedure because the statute

provides only for review of “an adverse decision . . . by the Department of Public

Safety and Corrections or a contractor operating a private prison facility.” La.R.S. 15:1177(A). While La.R.S. 15:1177 does mention inmates in the custody of the

sheriff, it does not provide for judicial review of sheriffs’ procedures; it only provides

the venue for judicial review of the Department of Correction’s decisions regarding

inmates housed in a parish prison. Moreover, Queen names employees of the Sheriff

as defendants even though the statute specifically provides that the Department of

Public Safety and Corrections is the only proper party defendant. La.R.S.

15:1177(A)(1)(b). See also Winston v. Martin, 34,195, 34,200 (La.App. 2 Cir.

9/21/00), 764 So.2d 368.

Queen argues that La.R.S. 15:1174 defines “offender” in such a way as to bring

him under the purview of the statute. Even if this were the case, it does not mean he

is entitled to judicial review under La.R.S. 15:1177. We are mindful that our brethren

on the first circuit have reached a contrary conclusion saying:

[T]his interpretation, which if carried to its logical conclusion seems to imply that some inmates housed in parish prisons are governed by the Department of Corrections’ administrative remedy procedure and others in the same facility are governed by the Parish Prison’s procedure. We believe that the statute, while clumsily phrased, does provide for judicial review of an adverse decision “rendered pursuant to any administrative remedy procedure under [the CARP],” including procedures adopted by sheriffs. LSA 15:1177(A) (emphasis added).

Spooner v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Dept., 01-2663, p. 6 ( La.App. 1 Cir.

11/8/02), 835 So.2d 709, 713. We disagree.

We take judicial notice of the fact that the Department of Public Safety and

Corrections contracts with local sheriffs to house inmates in parish correctional

facilities. This means that it is completely logical for some inmates, such as pre-trial

detainees like Queen, to be treated differently under the statute. Accordingly, we find

no error in the trial court’s judgments granting the exceptions of no cause of action

in favor of the defendants.

2 DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the trial court in these consolidated

cases are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.