Opinion
NO. 2016 CA 0940
02-21-2017
JAMES BURKS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
James Burks Cottonport, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant In Proper Person Debra A. Rutledge Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from The 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. C638854
The Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding James Burks
Cottonport, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant
In Proper Person Debra A. Rutledge
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections BEFORE: WELCH, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ. CRAIN, J.
James Burks, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, confined to Avoyelles Correctional Center, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review. We affirm.
Burks filed a claim under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (CARP), assigned case number AVC-2015-216, asserting that the Department incorrectly calculated his sentences and release date for a 1987 conviction for aggravated burglary and a 2011 conviction for second degree battery. In two previous CARP claims, assigned case numbers HDQ-2011-2360 and AVC-2013-753, Burks likewise asserted that the Department incorrectly calculated the time remaining on his sentences. In response to those claims, the Department provided detailed explanations of the calculation of Burks' remaining sentence, including his actual time served and his diminution credits earned for good behavior and attendance of educational and treatment programs. A previous panel of this court found no error in the calculation and affirmed the dismissal of a petition for judicial review filed for claim number HDQ-2011-2360. See Burks v. State, 13-0926, 2013WL6858287 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/13).
A petition seeking judicial review of the second CARP claim, AVC-2013-753, was dismissed as untimely filed. See Burks v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 14-1470, 2015WL3404793 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/30/15). --------
In the instant claim, Burks again asserts that the Department incorrectly calculated the remaining time on his sentences. The Department rejected the claim as duplicative of his previous requests. Burks then filed the present proceeding seeking judicial review of the Department's decision. After reviewing the petition and administrative record, the Commissioner for the Nineteenth Judicial District Court agreed with the Department and recommended that the petition be dismissed. The trial court, after a de novo review of the record, adopted the Commissioner's report and signed a judgment dismissing the matter.
Judicial review of a CARP claim is governed by Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1177. A reviewing court may reverse or modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative decisions or findings are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or (6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. La. R.S. 15:1177A(9). On appeal of the district court's judgment, the appellate court reviews the administrative record de novo under the criteria of Subsection 15:1177A(9), owing no deference to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court. Addison v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 15-1069 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/26/16), 191 So. 3d 1077, 1078.
Based upon our de novo review of the administrative record, we find no error in the district court's judgment dismissing the petition for judicial review. Under regulations adopted by the Department pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1171, the Department may reject a CARP claim if, among other reasons, it is duplicative of a prior claim. See La. Admin. Code 22:I:325(I)(1)(a)(ii)(c); Lanphier v. LeBlanc, 13-0508, 2014WL874939 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/28/14), writ denied, 14-1114 (La. 3/13/15), 161 So. 3d 631; Black v. Stadler, 07-2490, 2008WL2065067 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/2/08), writ denied, 08-2449 (La. 8/20/09), 15 So. 3d 1009. Burks' previous CARP claims asserted that the Department had incorrectly calculated the remaining time on his sentences. The subject CARP claim makes the same assertion and is thus duplicative of the previous claims. For this reason, we find no error in the Department's rejection of the claim and the district court's dismissal of Burks' petition for judicial review. See Lanphier, 2014WL874939 at 2; Black, 2008WL2065067 at 1-2.
We affirm the judgment of the district court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to James Burks. This memorandum opinion is issued in compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1.B.
AFFIRMED.