Thus, the district court must remand the case to the agency for the evidence to be introduced. See La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(4) & (A)(8); Curry v. Cain, 2005-2251 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So. 2d 635, 639. Davis appears to quote from RCC Directive #3.1.2(N) in his appellate brief. This court has no ready means of ascertaining applicable departmental regulations and no such authority has been introduced into evidence.
DISCUSSIONJudicial review of inmate lost property claims is governed by La. R.S. 15:1177 of CARP. Curry v. Cain, 05-2251, p. 4 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So. 2d 635, 638. Under the statutory scheme provided by CARP, judicial "review is confined to oral argument (which the court has discretion to grant or deny), based on the record made up in the administrative remedy proceding, although the court may order that additional evidence be taken." Pope v. State, 99-2559, p. 6 (La. 6/29/01), 792 So. 2d 713, 716 (footnote omitted).
Thus, any evidence submitted after July 25, 2007, can not be considered. See Curry v. Cain, 2005-2251 (La.App. 1st Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So.2d 635, 639. Thus, we reject any claim related to the "legal material."
Judicial review of inmate lost property claims is governed by La. R.S. 15:1177 of the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure. Curry v. Cain, 2005-2251 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So.2d 635, 638. Accordingly, a reviewing court may reverse or modify an administrative 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 an abuse of discretion; or (f) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record.
Judicial review of inmate lost property claims is governed by La. R.S. 15:1177 of the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP"). Curry v. Cain, 2005-2251 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So.2d 635, 638. Accordingly, a reviewing court may reverse or modify an administrative 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 an abuse of discretion; or (f) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record.
Covington also asserts that the district court erred in permitting the matter to be remanded for a second step response by DPSC. Judicial review of inmate lost property claims is governed by La. R.S. 15:1177 of the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act, La. R.S. 15:1171 et seq.Curry v. Cain , 2005-2251 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So. 2d 635, 638. Accordingly, a reviewing court may reverse or modify an administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
The district court has no authority to accept evidence or testimony at the hearing on review. Millsap, 2009WL3452891 at p.1; Curry v. Cain, 05-2251 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So. 2d 635, 639. Rather, the district court may order additional evidence be taken before the agency upon conditions determined by the court or to remand the case for further proceedings. See La. R.S. 15:1177A(4)&(8); Millsap, 2009WL3452891 at p.1. The commissioner, being subject to these same statutory limitations, erred in allowing additional evidence.
DISCUSSION Judicial review of an inmate's ARP claim is governed by La. R.S. 15:1177 of the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act. Judicial review is confined to the record made in the administrative proceeding, although a court may order that additional evidence be presented. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5) ; Curry v. Cain, 2005-2251 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So.2d 635, 638. Under La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5), judicial review is further limited to the issues presented in the petition for judicial review and the administrative request filed at the agency level.The scope of the trial court and this court's review of an administrative action taken by DPSC is limited by La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9), which provides that a court may reverse or modify an administrative decision only if the substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion; or (6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
Given that the record supports the Secretary's decision, we cannot say that decision, which the district court affirmed, is manifestly erroneous. See generally Curry v. Cain, 2005-2251 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So. 2d 635, 639. CONCLUSION
A district court exceeds its authority under the Corrections Administrative Procedure Act by expanding the record and allowing evidence to be introduced at the district court level. Curry v. Cain, 05-2251 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/06), 944 So.2d 635, 639. In the interest of justice and in accordance with LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A)(8), we thus remand this matter to the district court to order that additional evidence, including, but not limited to, the actual transcript of the December 22, 2009 hearing, be taken and considered by the DPSC.