Opinion
2016 CA 0762
02-17-2017
TERRY JOE FIELDS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Terry Joe Fields St. Gabriel, Louisiana Petitioner-Appellant In Proper Person William L. Kline Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUMBER C637388, SECTION 25, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE WILSON E. FIELDS, JUDGE Terry Joe Fields
St. Gabriel, Louisiana Petitioner-Appellant
In Proper Person William L. Kline
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Disposition: AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, J.
Petitioner-appellant, Terry Joe Fields, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) serving a sentence at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in Iberville Parish, appeals the district court's judgment, dismissing without prejudice his claims asserted in a petition for judicial review of a disciplinary action. We affirm.
According to the allegations of Fields' petition, he has been in DPSC custody for over twenty years. On October 16, 2014, he was granted parole by the Louisiana Parole Board. The following morning, at 6:10 a.m., he blacked out in front of a dormitory after breakfast. EMS rendered medical care. Fields avers that although he was accused of having "smok[ed] drugs," a urine test exonerated him. Pointing out that he suffers from high blood pressure, Fields states that his medical condition was the reason he blacked out. Fields claims that as a result of the incident, EMS treated him with IV fluids for dehydration, administered medication, and placed him on no-duty bedrest for a day.
After an investigation, Fields was found guilty of intoxication, a violation of Disciplinary Rule 14, and sentenced to "working cellblock" and an eight-week loss of canteen privileges. His appeal to the disciplinary board, seeking restoration of all rights and privileges before the incident, was denied. A subsequent appeal to the warden was also denied based on the investigative officer's report, Fields' medical record, and statements from two confidential informants.
Fields sought judicial review in the district court from the denial of his appeal. participate in the Transitional Work Program (TWP) until his parole date. Fields also asserted claims for loss of property based on his inability to work in the TWP and lost hobby-craft sales.
In his judicial review petition, Fields alleged he is entitled to damages for mental anguish and "anything else [he] deserves," ostensibly as a result of personal injury. In a later pleading, Fields requested temporary injunctive relief and damages for a constitutional violation. Based on a preliminary report, all of Fields' claims for damages arising from allegations sounding in tort were dismissed since they were improperly cumulated with the claim for judicial review of the disciplinary action, required different modes of trial and venue, and administrative remedies had not been exhausted. See La. R.S. 15:1184A(2), B, and F.
See La. R.S. 15:1111 (providing for the establishment and administrative of a work release program).
Although DPSC initially filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, before disposition of that matter, DPSC filed a motion to dismiss Fields' petition for judicial review. Concluding that Fields' petition for judicial review of the disciplinary action was moot, the district court granted the motion and dismissed Fields' petition without prejudice, assessing court costs against him. Fields appeals, urging the district court erred by failing to consider the merits of his judicial review claim and in ordering him to pay court costs.
The record establishes that after Fields filed his petition for judicial review, a rehearing was ordered. After a hearing, based on a "lack of evidence," the disciplinary board reversed its earlier determination and dismissed the charges of a rule violation against Fields on June 22, 2015.
In initiating his challenge against the charge of a rule violation, Fields expressly requested as relief "[r]estoration of all rights and privileges before [the] incident." Thus, with the dismissal of the charge against him, Fields was granted the exact relief he requested.
It is well settled that courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical, or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies. An issue is moot when a judgment or decree on that issue has been "deprived of practical significance" or "made abstract or purely academic." Thus, a case is moot when a rendered judgment or decree can serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or effect. If the case is moot, there is no subject matter on which the judgment of the court can operate. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. State , Dep't of Wildlife & Fisheries , 2012-0971 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/25/13), 140 So.3d 8, 19, writ denied, 2013-1565 (La. 10/4/13), 122 So.3d 1025.
Fields maintains that despite the subsequent reversal of the disciplinary action, the district court erred in failing to award him for his loss property claims. But nothing in the record establishes that Fields filed these claim for relief before DPSC. Thus, he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See La. R.S. 15:1184A(2) (no prisoner suit shall assert a claim under state law until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted). Moreover, as the Commissioner explained at the hearing held on July 14, 2015 in connection with DPSC's motion to dismiss, an inmate is required to seek review of each disciplinary board appeal separately rather than in a single petition for judicial review. See Goodin v. Secretary , Dep't of Corrs., 2011-0673 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So.3d 1076, 1080 (relying on Lightfoot v. Stalder , 97-2626 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/98), 727 So.2d 553, 555). Accordingly, having obtained the relief which he sought in his appeal of the disciplinary action with the grant of relief on rehearing, the appeal is moot. Thus, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and correctly dismissed Fields' petition for judicial review without prejudice.
We note that to the extent Fields asserts on appeal he was injured and is entitled to restitution as a result of DPSC's erroneous finding of a rule violation because his parole release date passed prior to the rehearing determination dismissing the charge against him, this contention, which is a result of action that occurred subsequent to the filing of his petition for judicial review, is not within the scope of his petition for judicial review. This record fails to establish that he has exhausted administrative remedies or filed such a claim in the proper venue utilizing the correct trial procedure. See La. R.S. 15:1184A(2), B, and F. --------
Without fully briefing the issue, Fields challenges the district court's assessment of costs against him. While the general rule is that the party cast in judgment should be assessed with court costs, the trial court may assess costs in any equitable manner and against any party in any proportion it deems equitable, even against the party prevailing on the merits. See La. C.C.P. art. 1920; Bourg v. Cajun Cutters , Inc., 2014-0210 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/7/15), 174 So.3d 56, 73, writ denied, 2015-1306 (La. 4/4/16), 190 So.3d 1201, and writ denied, 2015-1253 (La. 4/4/16), 190 So.3d 1205. Upon review, an appellate court will not disturb the district court's assessment of costs absent an abuse of the sound discretion afforded the district court. Bourg , 174 So.3d at 74.
Although Fields ultimately prevailed on the issue of his innocence of a rule violation, it was at the rehearing proceeding before the disciplinary board, not before the district court, that he obtained relief. Therefore, in the disposition of Fields' petition for judicial review, DPSC was not a "party cast in judgment." Moreover, despite the disciplinary board's reversal of the rule violation on June 22, 2015, Fields did not move to dismiss his petition for judicial review pending in the district court. Instead, in response to DPSC's motion to dismiss the judicial review petition as moot, Fields filed a rebuttal, invoking a proceeding before the Commissioner. As such, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in taxing costs against Fields.
DECREE
For these reasons, the district court judgment dismissing without prejudice Fields' petition for judicial review as moot is affirmed. Appeal costs are assessed against petitioner-appellant, Terry Joe Fields.
AFFIRMED.