Opinion
2012 CA 0782
02-25-2013
RONALD EARL WILLIAMS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Ronald Earl Williams Angola, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant Pro Se Terri L. Cannon Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for the Defendant/Appellee Louisiana 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
Docket No. 603,002, Section 25
The Honorable Wilson Fields, Judge Presiding
Ronald Earl Williams
Angola, Louisiana
Plaintiff/Appellant
Pro Se
Terri L. Cannon
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for the Defendant/Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: PARRO, HUGHES, AND WELCH, JJ.
HUGHES , J.
This is an appeal of a judgment that sustained an exception of no right of action in favor of the defendant/appellee, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), and dismissed the action of the plaintiff/appellant, Mr. Ronald Earl Williams, with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 12, 2011 Mr. Ronald Williams, an offender in the custody of DPSC, made a written request to the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) for various documents concerning Lt. Edward L. Honeycutt, an LSP employee. Mr. Williams alleged that he was entitled to the information pursuant to the Public Records Doctrine, LSA-R.S. 44:31, et seq. DPSC denied the request based on his status as an individual "in custody after sentence following a felony conviction." Thus, DPSC determined that Mr. Williams was not entitled to the information he sought, citing LSA-R.S. 44:31.1.
Specifically, he sought to obtain the personnel records of a Louisiana State Penitentiary employee, Lt. Edward Honeycutt, including, but not limited to, a copy of Lt. Honeycutt's training certificate, a copy of every report Lt. Honeycutt has written for an inmate's rule infraction, a copy of every record Lt. Honeycutt has documenting his having administered a chemical agent, a copy of the weight of the chemical agent before and after its administration, a copy of every grievance or complaint filed against Lt. Honeycutt, and a copy of the policy or policies that authorized Lt. Honeycutt to administer those chemical agents.
Mr. Williams filed a petition in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court seeking a writ of mandamus, damages, penalties, and costs pursuant to LSA-R.S. 44:35(A)(3) for DPSC's failure to provide him with the records he had requested. In response, DPSC filed exceptions raising the objections of no right of action and non-public record, re-urging its original position that Mr. Williams was excluded from access to the records under LSA-R.S. 44:31.1, and also arguing that the records were not public records by virtue of LSA- R.S. 44:3, which states that information directly related to the internal security of the LSP is not susceptible to the public records doctrine.
Although the petition names as defendants the LSP and Warden Burl Cain, the only proper party defendant is the DPSC. LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A)(1)(b).
The commissioner of the 19th JDC issued a report recommending that DPSC's exception of no right of action be sustained and that the suit be dismissed with prejudice at Mr. Williams's costs. After a de novo review, the district court adopted the reasons of the commissioner and rendered judgment on November 8, 2011 granting DPSC's exception of no right of action and dismissing Mr. Williams's petition with prejudice. Mr. Williams appeals and makes the following assignments of error:
The office of the commissioner of the 19th Judicial District Court was created by LSA-R.S. 13:711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. The commissioner's written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. LSA-R.S. 13:713(A) and (C)(5).
I. The granting of the defendant's Exception discriminated against Petitioner, as a person incarcerated, in that it den[ied] Petitioner the equal protection of the laws.
II. The granting of the defendant's Exception "non cause of action" was not by Public Records Acts provided by law.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
An action can only be brought by a person having a real and actual interest in the cause of action that he asserts. LSA-C.C.P. art. 681; Robertson v. Sun Life Financial, 09-2275 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/11/10), 40 So.3d 507, 511. The function of the exception urging no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit. Robertson, 40 So.3d at 511. The focus in an exception of no right of action is on whether the particular plaintiff has a right to bring the suit; it assumes that the petition states a valid cause of action for some person and questions whether the plaintiff in the particular case is a member of the class that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Robertson, 40 So.3d at 511. Whether a plaintiff has a right of action is a question of law and is therefore reviewed de novo on appeal. Gibbs v. Delatte, 05-0821 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/05), 927 So.2d 1131, 1135, writ denied, 06-0198 (La. 4/24/06), 936 So.2d 548.
Mr. Williams was tried and found guilty of the crime of armed robbery with a firearm. Moreover, he was adjudicated a second felony offender. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for sixty (60) years without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Pursuant to the firearm enhancement provision, the court also sentenced Mr. Williams to confinement at hard labor for five (5) years without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively with each other and with his prior felony sentence. Thus, Mr. Williams has been found guilty of a felony violation, has been sentenced, and is in the custody of the DPSC.
In his petition, Mr. Williams relies upon LSA-R.S. 44:31 and seeks to have the court order the LSP to provide him copies of various records pertaining to its employee, Lt. Honeycutt. Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:31 states that:
A. Providing access to public records is a responsibility and duty of the appointive or elective office of a custodian and his employees.
B. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or as otherwise specifically provided by law, and in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, any person of the age of majority may inspect, copy, or reproduce any public record.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or as otherwise specifically provided by law, and in accordance with
the provisions of this Chapter, any person may obtain a copy or reproduction of any public record.
(3) The burden of proving that a public record is not subject to inspection, copying, or reproduction shall rest with the custodian. (Emphasis added.)
DPSC alleges that LSA-R.S. 44:31.1 must be applied to exclude Mr. Williams from access to the records he requested. Louisiana Revised Statutes 41:31.1 provides that:
For the purposes of this Chapter, person does not include an individual in custody after sentence following a felony conviction who has exhausted his appellate remedies when the request for public records is not limited to grounds upon which the individual could file for post conviction relief under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.3. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in R.S. 44:32, the custodian may make an inquiry of any individual who applies for a public record to determine if such individual is in custody after sentence following a felony conviction who has exhausted his appellate remedies and the custodian may make any inquiry necessary to determine if the request of any such individual in custody for a felony conviction is limited to grounds upon which such individual may file for post conviction relief under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.3. (Emphasis added.)
Based upon the language of the applicable law, we find no error in the district court's judgment granting of the exception of no right of action. Mr. Williams is "an individual in custody after sentence following a felony conviction." Clearly, the exception set forth in LSA-R.S. 44:31.1 applies to him. Moreover, Mr. Williams did not allege in his original request, his petition, or on appeal that the information he has requested is necessary for him to establish any grounds upon which he could file for post conviction relief pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.3. We therefore find no merit to the assignments of error.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment sustaining the exception of no right of action is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendant/appellant, Ronald Earl Williams.
AFFIRMED.