Opinion
NO. 2022 CA 1103
04-14-2023
Ben Henry SCOTT v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Ben Henry Scott, Jackson, Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, In Proper Person Jonathan R. Vining, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Ben Henry Scott, Jackson, Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, In Proper Person
Jonathan R. Vining, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., WOLFE AND MILLER, JJ.
WOLFE, J.
An inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"), appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing, without prejudice, his petition for judicial review on grounds that he filed his tort suit in the wrong venue. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ben Henry Scott is an inmate incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Institute located in East Feliciana Parish. Scott alleges he was injured on February 18, 2020, when he was attempting to exit a prison transportation van using an unbalanced step-down stand that caused him to lose his footing. Scott filed a grievance on March 2, 2020, by utilizing administrative remedy procedures, ARP No. DCI-2020-240, in which he complained of his slip and fall injury, inadequate medical care, and the lack of a timely response by DPSC to his ARP. Due to a backlog in the system from another pending ARP filed by Scott, the ARP screening officer did not accept ARP No. DCI-2020-240 until May 26, 2020.
Before receiving a response from DPSC, Scott filed a petition for judicial review of ARP No. DCI-2020-240 on November 9, 2020, in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. In his petition, Scott alleged that DPSC failed to timely answer his grievance, and he also alleged a tort claim that prison transport employees negligently failed to meet their duty of care which caused him a back injury. The commissioner for the district court screened Scott's petition and issued a mandamus service order to DPSC on November 16, 2020, compelling DPSC to respond to Scott's ARP grievance.
On December 18, 2020, DPSC filed an exception raising the objection of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Scott's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Attached to DPSC's exception was a purported first-step response for ARP No. DCI-2020-240, but there was no disposition date. Subsequently, a remand order was signed by the district court on May 13, 2021, ordering DPSC to answer Scott's ARP at the first step. A status conference was held almost a year later on April 12, 2022, to determine whether Scott had received a first-step response from DPSC and to inform Scott that he had the right to appeal his grievance if he was unsatisfied with the first-step response. On May 31, 2022, DPSC filed a notice of compliance, advising the district court that a final agency decision for ARP No. DCI-2020-240 was issued and denied at the second step.
After confirmation that the administrative process was complete, the commissioner reviewed the record and issued a report to the district court, recommending that Scott's petition be dismissed without prejudice because it was filed in the improper mode for ordinary tort suits and in the improper venue. Scott filed a traversal, seeking an opportunity to timely file his petition for damages in the proper venue where the prison is located in East Feliciana Parish. The district court adopted the commissioner's written recommendation, and in a judgment signed on August 15, 2022, Scott's petition for judicial review of ARP No. DCI-2020-240 was dismissed without prejudice, because it was filed in an improper mode for trial and in an improper venue. Scott now appeals, maintaining the district court erred in dismissing his petition.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
All complaints and grievances of inmates against DPSC or its employees are subject to the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act ("CARP"). La. R.S. 15:1171, et seq ; Guy v. Calvit, 2019-1675 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/5/20), 311 So.3d 362, 365. Pursuant to CARP, grievances and complaints include "any and all claims seeking monetary, injunctive, declaratory, or any other form of relief authorized by law." La. R.S. 15:1171(B). Once an inmate initiates the formal ARP process, that process must be exhausted before an inmate may proceed with a suit in federal or state court. La. R.S. 15:1176 ; Guy, 311 So.3d at 366. Thus, Scott was required to exhaust administrative remedies on his grievances before he filed his petition for judicial review. Furthermore, pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177(C) and 1184(F), any delictual action for injury or damages is required to be filed separately as an original civil action, not as an appeal for judicial review, and the inmate's ordinary tort suit must be filed in the mandatory venue of the parish where the prison was located as of the time the cause of action arose. See Warren v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2020-0247 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/19/21), 320 So.3d 453, 455-456.
In Scott's petition for judicial review filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Scott requested not only a response to his ARP grievance, but also repair or replacement of the allegedly defective step-down stand attached to the prison transportation van, proper training for prison employees, and monetary damages for the back injury he sustained. However, Scott's claim for monetary damages was required to be filed as an ordinary suit in the Twentieth Judicial District Court for East Feliciana Parish where Dixon Correctional Institute is located, not as a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. After a de novo consideration of the petition with its attachments and the commissioner's report and the traversal thereto, the district court dismissed Scott's suit for damages without prejudice for failure to file the claims in the mandatory venue and in the proper format for ordinary lawsuits. Proper venue presents a question of law, and such questions of law are reviewed by appellate courts de novo . See Carmouche v. Cain, 2012-0192 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/12), 2012 WL 4335436, *2 (unpublished).
After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in dismissing Scott's petition for judicial review. The judicial review procedure does not apply to delictual actions for injury or damages after administrative remedies are exhausted. Tort claims must be filed separately as original civil actions. La. R.S. 15:1177(C) ; Foster v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2012-0358 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/2/12), 111 So.3d 81, 82. The exclusive venue for tort claims for injury or damages is the parish where the prison is situated to which the inmate was assigned when the cause of action arose. La. R.S. 15:1184(F). When an inmate files such a suit in an improper venue, the district court may raise the exception of improper venue on its own motion and dismiss the suit La. R.S. 15:1184(B) ; Foster, 111 So.3d at 83. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Scott's petition for judicial review without prejudice so that Scott may file his tort claim in the proper parish. See Carmouche, 2012 WL 4335436 at *3.
CONCLUSION
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant, Ben Henry Scott.