Opinion
NO. 2014 CA 0994
01-08-2015
TRELANE JOHNSON v. WARDEN HOWARD PRINCE, COLONEL BETTY JOHNSON, COLONEL SPEDALE
Trelane Johnson Elayn Hunt Correctional Center St. Gabriel, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant, In proper person William L. Kline Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court, In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. C625599
The Honorable William A. Morvant, Judge Presiding
Trelane Johnson
Elayn Hunt Correctional Center
St. Gabriel, Louisiana
Plaintiff/Appellant,
In proper person
William L. Kline
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Attorney for Defendant/Appellee,
Department of Public Safety and
Corrections
BEFORE: McDONALD, GRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
Holdridge, J., serving as Supernumerary Judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
HOLDRIDGE, J.
Petitioner, Trelane Johnson, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (the Department), appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for judicial review of a disciplinary decision on the grounds that he failed to raise a "substantial right" violation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The petitioner is sometimes referred to in the record as "Treland" Johnson.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 28, 2013, while incarcerated at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Mr. Johnson was charged with violating Rule #30E (General Prohibited Behavior). The charges were based on an incident report in which Colonel Betty Johnson stated that she was investigating a matter in which an offender was on the institutional telephone planning to smuggle drugs into the facility by way of an unnamed offender on work detail Squad-5. Colonel Johnson advised other corrections center personnel to go to the purported pick-up location and search for the drugs. The officers found a McDonald's bag in the exact location stated in the telephone conversation. The McDonald's bag was searched and was found to contain contraband known as "Kush Grape." The officers removed the drugs from the bag and placed a note inside the bag, which stated, "You've been caught." Colonel Johnson and MSgt Tillman then positioned themselves near the front entrance road with a clear view of the correctional center gate welcome sign where the McDonald's bag was placed. The officers observed two inmates in orange rain suits bend down, one of them retrieved the bag, and they then rushed to the Squad-5 work vehicle with the bag. Colonel Johnson and MSgt Tillman hurried to apprehend and search the offenders. The note was found on the ground near the two inmates. One of the inmates was later identified as Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson was placed in administrative segregation pending an investigation and disciplinary hearing. A Disciplinary Board hearing was held on June 19, 2013. He was found guilty of general prohibited behaviors and sentenced to a custody change to maximum-extended lockdown and forfeiture of canteen privileges for eight weeks. Mr. Johnson appealed the disciplinary action to the Secretary of the Department and his appeal was denied.
Mr. Johnson filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177, claiming that his due process rights were infringed because he was not provided with the telephone conversation recording or the statement of the co-offender and other documents that he contends would prove his innocence. In response to the petition, the Department filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action for failure to state a substantial rights violation, pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9).
A hearing before Commissioner Quintillis K. Lawrence was held on March 18, 2014. On that same day, Commissioner Lawrence issued a recommendation that Mr. Johnson's appeal be dismissed, with prejudice, and at his cost, for failure to raise a "substantial right" violation and thus, for failing to state a cognizable claim or cause of action for relief.
Mr. Johnson participated in the hearing remotely by communications technology.
--------
After de novo review of the entire record, including the Commissioner's Recommendation report, and Mr. Johnson's traversal, the district court rendered judgment on April 23, 2014, adopting the reasons set forth in the Commissioner's Recommendation report and dismissing Mr. Johnson's appeal with prejudice. Mr. Johnson then filed the instant appeal.
DISCUSSION
Under La. R.S. 15:1177A(9), the court can not reverse or modify a decision unless the inmate's substantial rights have been prejudiced. It is well settled that a change of custody status is not atypical nor a significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life, and does not prejudice an inmate's substantial rights. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-486, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300-2301, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Parker v. LeBlanc, 2002-0399 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/14/03), 845 So.2d 445, 446; Lay v. Porey, 97-2903 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/98), 727 So.2d 592, 594, writ denied, 99-2720 (La. 3/31/00), 758 So.2d 812.
On appeal to this court, Mr. Johnson raises the same issues of violations of due process, resulting in disciplinary measures which he believes are excessive. We have reviewed the entire record and relevant jurisprudence and agree with the judgment of the district court. There was no violation of a substantial right involved, and due process for an inmate does not necessarily require that he be allowed to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or have counsel during disciplinary proceedings. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2980-2981, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
As noted in the Commissioner's Recommendation report:
In this case, the only penalty imposed was extended lockdown. The Petitioner was afforded a hearing and an appeal of the ruling of the Warden and the Secretary. Considering the nature of the penalty, and the fact that it does not affect the length of the Petitioner's sentence or present any other drastic departure from expected prison life, the Petitioner fails to set forth a substantial right violation which would authorize this Court to intervene and reverse the Agency's decision.
CONCLUSION
Since the disciplinary action imposed in this case does not rise to the level of a substantial rights violation, modification or reversal of the disciplinary action is not warranted. We agree with the district court's judgment for the reasons set forth in the Commissioner's Recommendation report, which we attach hereto as Exhibit "A" and adopt as our own. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, dismissing Mr. Johnson's petition for judicial review with prejudice. All costs of this appeal are assessed to petitioner/appellant, Trelane Johnson.