Opinion
NO. 2017 CA 0397
02-25-2019
RENE NETTER #235615 v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Rene Netter D.O.C. #235615 Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, LA 70712 Appellant, pro se Heather C. Hood Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Appellee, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
Docket No. C624699, Div. F The Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding Rene Netter D.O.C. #235615
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, LA 70712 Appellant, pro se Heather C. Hood
Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Appellee,
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections BEFORE: WELCH, CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ. LANIER, J.
Rene Netter, in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LDPSC), appeals the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (19th JDC), which affirmed the decision of the LPDSC on judicial review, and dismissed Mr. Netter's petition without prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Netter filed a petition for judicial review on September 18, 2013, after exhausting his administrative remedies. Mr. Netter asserted that the LDPSC had forbidden legitimate use of his personal funds, claiming that half of his personal funds were placed the LDPSC into a "Reserve Account," thereby precluding him from using the money at his discretion and confining purchases to the Offender Canteen on the prison campus (the canteen).
In its brief in support of maintaining its decision, the LDPSC claimed that Mr. Netter, who the LDPSC had designated as indigent, owed a debt of $594.23 as of February 20, 2014, although Mr. Netter claimed in his petition that he owed "3 or 4 hundred dollars." After receiving a money order of $300, half of the amount was secured by the LDPSC for the repayment of Mr. Netter's outstanding debt, pursuant to LDPSC Regulation B-09-003, and the other half was put into Mr. Netter's reserve account. Mr. Netter had attempted to transfer money from the reserve account to a "JPay Media Account" in order to purchase a JP4 player for the purpose of, among other things, sending email, but claimed he was not allowed to do so. The relief requested by Mr. Netter in his petition for judicial review was for the district court to declare Regulation B-09-003 unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection, arguing that the regulation restricted him from using his funds at his discretion.
The LDPSC "Inmate Banking - Debt Account Summary" for Mr. Netter, which was attached to the LDPSC's brief as Exhibit 1, lists Mr. Netter's debt as $594.23, while the LDPSC's brief lists Mr. Netter's debt as $594.33. Exhibit 1 indicates a "total debt" of $3,076.32, but a "total owed" of $594.23. Payees are indicated by varying numerical codes, as well as titles denoting payments to the "LSP General Fund," "HCC General Fund," the 19th JDC, and the 24th JDC.
Regulation B-09-003(A) states, in pertinent part:
1. All funds accompanying an offender from a local jail facility shall be credited to the offender's drawing account in the Offender Banking System. All permissible sources of funds... shall be credited to the offender's drawing account in the Offender Banking System. In cases where the offender has an outstanding debt balance, and is currently in an indigent status, 50% of the deposit received shall be posted to the offender's drawing account and 50% shall be posted to the offender's reserve account, up to a $250.00 maximum limit.
In his brief in support of the petition for judicial review, Mr. Netter argued that La. R.S. 15:874, which regulated inmate compensation accounts, does not authorize the LDPSC "to control and restrict the use of my money by way of a reserve account." He further argued that there is no statutory provision allowing for the creation of a reserve account, and that La. R.S. 15:874 and related statutes only provide for a prisoner's drawing account and a savings account.
The Commissioner of the 19th JDC issued a report in review of the matter, and concluded that the LDPSC did not arbitrarily deprive Mr. Netter of his right to property. The Commissioner also agreed with the LDPSC's argument that Regulation B-09-003 actually protects Mr. Netter's right to his property by preventing the LDPSC from depositing all of his funds into the drawing account and using all of the funds toward payment of his debt. The Commissioner recommended that the decision of the LDPSC be affirmed, and that Mr. Netter's petition be dismissed without prejudice. The district court adopted the Commissioner's recommendation and dismissed Mr. Netter's petition without prejudice.
The Office of 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. La. R.S. 13:713(A). The Commissioner's written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R.S. 13:713(C)(5); see Martinez v. Tanner, 2011-0692 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So.3d 1082, 1084 n.3, writ denied, 2011-2732 (La. 7/27/12), 93 So.3d 597.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Mr. Netter assigns two errors to the district court's judgment:
1. The district court failed to use the manifest error and arbitrary and capricious tests in reviewing the administrative tribunal's conclusions and exercise of discretion.
2. The district court relied upon erroneous findings and conclusions and refused to address the issues set before it on judicial review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act, La. R.S. 15:1171 et seq., review of a decision by the LDPSC made in the course of the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The review shall be limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy request filed at the agency level. Thus, under the statutory framework of the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act, the opportunity for the parties to present evidence occurs at the administrative level, not at the trial court level, and review by the trial court is limited to the record established at the administrative level, absent alleged irregularities in the procedure. Lee v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2017-0740 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/21/17), 240 So.3d 244, 247, citing Lightfoot v. Stalder, 2000-1120 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/22/01), 808 So.2d 710, 715, writ denied, 2001-2295 (La. 8/30/02), 823 So.2d 957; La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5).
The standard for judicial review by the district court is set forth, in pertinent part, in La R.S. 15:1177(A)(9), which provides:
The court may reverse or modify the decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
(b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency.
(c) Made upon unlawful procedure.
(d) Affected by other error of law.
(e) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
(f) Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by firsthand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.
On review of the district court's judgment rendered on 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. Lee, 240 So.3d at 247, citing McCoy v. Stalder, 99-1747 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/22/00), 770 So.2d 447, 450-451.
DISCUSSION
No rule of an administrative agency shall be effective, nor may it be enforced, unless it was adopted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act (APA), La. R.S. 49:950 et seq. Rivera v. State, 98-0507 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/98), 727 So.2d 609, 612-613, writ denied, 99-0289 (La. 3/26/99), 740 So.2d 617. The APA is found in Title 49 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, and Chapter 13 governs Administrative Procedure. The standards to which an agency's regulations must adhere are found in La. R.S. 49:964(G) of the APA, and those standards are the same as which the district court must follow pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9).
Prisoners have a property interest in funds in their inmate banking accounts that is entitled to due process protection. A substantial right is analogous to a due process right, in that it is limited to one in which the petitioner has a "liberty interest." Anderson v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2017-0987 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/7/18), 242 So.3d 614, 618. Thus, Mr. Netter's claims regarding the alleged restriction of use of funds from his reserve account without legal authorization clearly involved a substantial right.
Mr. Netter correctly states that a reserve account is not provided for or even mentioned in La. R.S. 15:874, the statute regulating compensation accounts, which is one of the sources of authority for Regulation B-09-003. His request for relief, that Regulation B-09-003 be declared unconstitutional, is a proper remedy if we find the regulation violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the LDPSC's statutory authority. See Piazza's Seafood World, LLC v. Odom, 2007-2191 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/08), 6 So.3d 820, 824.
However, we do not find that the mere absence of reference to a reserve account in La. R.S. 15:874 makes Regulation B-09-003 unconstitutional or beyond statutory authority. Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:874(3) states that expenditures for or on behalf of an inmate from his account may be made "in strict conformity with rules and regulations pertaining thereto." Louisiana's own equal protection standard is based upon the guarantee that laws generally affect alike all persons and interests similarly situated. State v. Granger, 2007-2285 (La. 5/21/08), 982 So.2d 779, 788. The regulation as written is applicable to all inmates of the LDPSC. Although Regulation B-09-003 contains special rules regarding indigent inmates, Mr. Netter has given no evidence of how indigent inmates as defined by Regulation B-09-004 as a class are prejudiced by Regulation B-09-003. As such, we find Regulation B-09-003 does not violate equal protection and does not exceed the authority of La. R.S. 15:874.
Regulation B-09-004(6)(B) defines "Indigent Offenders" as "[t]hose who do not have sufficient funds in the appropriate account(s) at the time of their request for indigent services and/or supplies to fully cover the cost of the requested services or supplies." --------
Mr. Netter would still be entitled to the requested remedy if the LDPSC was arbitrary and capricious in its imposition of Regulation B-09-003 by restricting his use of his reserve account funds. The test of whether an action is arbitrary and capricious is whether the action taken is reasonable under the circumstances. The question we must ask is whether the action was taken without reason. Castle Investors, Inc. v. Jefferson Parish Council, 472 So.2d 152, 154 (La. App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 474 So.2d 1311 (La. 1985).
Regulation B-09-003(5) states its policy as "that the receipt, expenditure and final disposition of offender funds... be properly accounted for in keeping with sound accounting procedures and in accordance with state law." In other words, the LDPSC has an interest in the proper accounting and monitoring of the inmates' funds to avoid loss or misappropriation of those funds. Regulation B-09-003(B)(6)(11) states, in pertinent part:
Funds from offender accounts may also be expended as follows:
a. The drawing account shall be available for:
i. Transfers to immediate family members;
ii. Approved business or legal expenses;
iii. Transfer to approved savings accounts with outside banking institutions...
iv. Services or merchandise approved by Department Regulation No. C-03-007...
v. Other legitimate and verifiable purposes as approved by the Warden.
b. The reserve account shall be available for:
i. Purchases of items from canteen...
ii. Transfers to drawing account to pay for court costs and clemency costs...
iii. Transfer to drawing account to pay postage...
iv. Transfers to drawing account upon release to cover discharge payments...
v. Transfers to drawing account to pay for a Louisiana Driver's License or Identification Card...
c. The savings account shall be available for:
i. Purchase of Savings bonds...
ii. Purchase of accredited education courses...
iii. Payment of court cost and clemency cost...
iv. Payments to satisfy some restitution charges...
v. Payments to satisfy medical co-payments...
vi. Payments to satisfy Crime Victims Reparations...
vii. Transfers to drawing account upon release to cover discharge payments...
viii. Transfers to drawing account to pay for a Louisiana Driver's License or Identification cards...
After a complete review of the record, we find that the LDPSC's imposition of Regulation B-09-003 with respect to Mr. Netter was not arbitrary or capricious. The purpose of the regulation benefits inmates as a whole by restricting the amount of their income that can be utilized to satisfy their outstanding debts. We note that La. R.S. 15:874(4)(d) states that "[t]he funds credited to the inmate's drawing or savings account may be withdrawn to satisfy any medical or dental copayment." To the extent that Mr. Netter owed any medical or dental copayments, absent Regulation B-09-003, the LDPSC is authorized by statute to take any income he receives to entirely satisfy those particular debts.
We further note that La. R.S. 15:874(7), which pertains to court costs, states "[t]he funds in an inmate's accounts shall not be reduced by more than seventy-five percent in accordance with this Section." The LDPSC "Inmate Banking - Debt Account Summary" for Mr. Netter, which was attached to the LDPSC's brief as Exhibit 1, indicated that Mr. Netter owed $470.00 to the 19th JDC and $259.06 to the 24th JDC. Although the LDPSC would have statutory authority to seize up to 75% of Mr. Netter's income to satisfy those debts, instead it has chosen to seize only 50% of his income to satisfy his debt, leaving him more funds at his disposal in the reserve account and protecting his property interest in his personal funds.
By function of Regulation B-09-003, once Mr. Netter has fully paid off his debt, funds in excess of $250 in his reserve account would transfer to his drawing account, along with any other funds deposited there. The drawing account is not restricted to canteen purchases, and it is from the drawing account that Mr. Netter would be able to open a JPay Media Account and purchase a JP4 player.
Regulation B-09-003 has been created for the benefit of Mr. Netter and all other similarly situated inmates who owed debt to the LDPSC, and it also serves the purpose of maintaining regular and reliable accounting procedures for the LDPSC. As we find that there was a reasonable basis for the LDPSC's creation of the reserve account system, we find that the LDPSC's imposition of Regulation B-09-003 to restrict Mr. Netter's use of his funds was not arbitrary and capricious.
DECREE
The judgment of the Nineteenth JDC affirming the decision of the LDPSC to dismiss Rene Netter's petition for judicial review without prejudice is affirmed. We decline to assess costs in this pauper suit. See Demouchette v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2016-0726 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/17/17), 2017 WL 657642, at *4 (unpublished).
AFFIRMED.