Opinion
NUMBER 2018 CA 0719
02-22-2019
JAMES COLEMAN v. SHERYL M. RANATZA, PAROLE BOARD CHAIRMAN
James Coleman Jackson, LA In Proper Person Plaintiff/Appellant Jonathan R. Vining Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
Docket Number 632,690 Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding James Coleman
Jackson, LA In Proper Person
Plaintiff/Appellant Jonathan R. Vining
Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for
Defendant/Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ. GUIDRY, J.
James Coleman, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) at the Dixon Correctional Institute, appeals the dismissal of his petition for judicial review. We affirm.
Coleman was convicted of armed robbery on April 14, 1992, and sentenced to the custody of the DPSC for forty years imprisonment at hard labor on July 10, 1992. In August 2014, Coleman filed a "Petition for Judicial Review" with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (19th JDC), seeking review of an administrative remedy procedure, ARP No. WNC-2010-926, wherein he contested the DPSC's calculation of the amount of "good time" to which he was entitled. In his petition, Coleman also raised an additional claim in which he alleged that he had served and completed his parole time and was entitled to an immediate release from DPSC custody. In asserting the additional claim, Coleman argued that the contract he signed in order to receive good time, as well as state law and departmental regulations, supported his allegation.
In his petition for judicial review, Coleman named Sheryl Ranatza as defendant, but in processing the petition, the district court served the petition on James M. LeBlanc, in his capacity as secretary of the DPSC. Although the petition names Ranatza, as shown in the suit caption, the proper party defendant is the DPSC. See La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(1)(b); Martinez v. Tanner, 11-0692, p. 1 n.1 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So. 3d 1082, 1082 n.1, writ denied, 11-2732 (La. 7/27/12), 93 So. 3d 597.
See La. R.S. 15:571.3(B).
On April 9, 2011, Coleman was released on good time parole supervision, but for reasons not disclosed in the record before us, his parole was later revoked, and he was returned to the physical custody of the DPSC.
In response to Coleman's petition for judicial review, James M. LeBlanc, Secretary of the DPSC, filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. Finding merit in the motion, the 19th JDC granted Secretary LeBlanc's motion, and in a judgment signed on January 26, 2015, dismissed the petition based on Coleman's failure to timely seek judicial review in accordance with La. R.S. 15:1177. Coleman appealed.
On appellate review, this court reversed the January 26, 2015 judgment insofar as it related to the review of ARP No. WNC-2010-926. Observing that the record did not contain evidence of when or if Coleman had received notice of the DPSC's second step ruling on ARP No. WNC-2010-926, this court held the dismissal of Coleman's petition, as it related to ARP No. WNC-2010-926, would be reversed and the matter remanded to the 19th JDC for further proceedings. However, this court affirmed the judgment's dismissal of the additional claim raised by Coleman, finding the dismissal proper because Coleman had never submitted that claim for administrative review; hence, that claim was not properly before the district court. See Coleman v. Ranatza, 15-0759, pp. 6-8 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/15/16), 2016 WL 1535412, at *3-4.
On remand, a commissioner with the 19th JDC issued an order to the DPSC to supplement the administrative record with a signed acknowledgment of Coleman's receipt of the second step response "to support or disprove" that the motion to dismiss the petition for judicial review of ARP No. WNC-2010-926 was untimely. The DPSC was unable to provide such evidence, and as a result, the 19th JDC considered the merits of Coleman's petition for judicial review of ARP No. WNC-2010-926.
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. 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; Harvey v. Stalder, 07-1595, p. 3 n.3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/2/08), 991 So. 2d 54, 56 n.3.
In reviewing the merits of Coleman's petition for judicial review, the commissioner assigned to the case noted that, on remand, Coleman continued to present argument relative to the additional claim he had raised, which the district court had dismissed, and this court affirmed the dismissal on appeal due to Coleman's failure to first seek administrative review of the claim before presenting it for judicial review.
In her recommendation, the commissioner observed:
Clearly, [Coleman] is not concerned with seeking judicial review of the original complaint raised in ARP No. WNC-2010-926.... [Coleman's] only concern in this request for judicial review is to argue before this Court that he somehow managed to purchase his early release on a 40 year sentence after having served only 20 years of that sentence, not only from the physical custody of the [DPSC], but from parole supervision as well, by signing a good time option contract. There can be no question that [Coleman] merely used ARP No. WNC-2010-926 as a means of getting that argument before the Court[.]
...
[G]iven the amount of confusion produced by [Coleman] and his propensity to combine multiple complaints and filings into a single suit record, this Commissioner will in fact address the merits of his claim raised [i.e., ARP No. WNC-2010-926], prior to his release onto [sic] good time parole supervision and the consequences of his subsequent revocation.
As to the merits of Coleman's claim in ARP No. WNC-2010-926, wherein he asserted that the DPSC had improperly calculated the amount of good time for certain Certified Treatment Rehabilitation Program (CTRP) credits (commonly referred to as education credits), the commissioner determined that Coleman's complaint regarding the proper amount to be credited became moot upon his subsequent release on good time parole supervision. See La. R.S. 15:571.4(B)(2) ; see also Hampton v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 16-0402, p. 8 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/17/17), 213 So. 3d 394, 398-99 (wherein this court observed that as a consequence of the inmate's violating the terms of his good time release, "he forfeited the educational good time credits he had accrued as well"). The commissioner therefore recommended that the decision of the DPSC be affirmed and that Coleman's petition for judicial review be dismissed with prejudice at his costs. The commissioner further recommended that any additional "pleadings" filed by Coleman into the record be dismissed without prejudice. The 19th JDC thereafter signed a judgment on January 8, 2018, affirming the decision of the DPSC, dismissing Coleman's petition for judicial review of ARP No. WNC-2010-926 with prejudice and dismissing any additional pleadings that Coleman had filed in the record, which judgment Coleman appealed.
The cited provision states:
An inmate who has been returned to the custody of the department because of a violation of the terms of parole granted by the committee on parole shall forfeit all good time earned or credits toward the reduction of the projected good time parole supervision date on that portion of the sentence served prior to the granting of parole.
The record contains several documents that Coleman filed with the 19th JDC, including some offering to settle his claims against the DPSC for monetary compensation and for habeas corpus relief. Notably, in those documents, Coleman reiterates his contention that based on his interpretation of his good time contract, state law, and departmental rules, he should be deemed to have completed his 40-year sentence for armed robbery and should be released without any parole requirements. He further indicated that the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court should have processed his complaint through administrative channels based on a letter he filed with that court in June 2014. The record also appears to contain an administrative remedy request and other actions by Coleman, wherein he also asserts the same claim. By submission of these documents, Coleman appears to have attempted to give the district court grounds to consider his additional claim in the present action in lieu of considering ARP No. WNC-2010-926. The district court's dismissal of this attempt by Coleman was proper. --------
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we find no error in the January 8, 2018 judgment and hereby affirm. We issue this memorandum opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B). All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, James Coleman.
AFFIRMED.