Opinion
NO. 2017 CA 0316
11-01-2017
KEITHIAN GREENHOUSE v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Keithian Greenhouse Cottonport, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant Pro Se William L. Kline Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
Case No. C644369 The Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding Keithian Greenhouse
Cottonport, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant
Pro Se William L. Kline
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ. THERIOT, J.
The appellant, Keithian Greenhouse ("Greenhouse"), appeals the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court ("19th JDC") that dismissed his petition for judicial review of the administrative decision of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("LDPSC"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Greenhouse, an inmate of Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, Louisiana, seeks judicial review of a disciplinary action taken against him by the prison's administration. Greenhouse was placed on a non-contact visiting list on January 16, 2015, after being found guilty of conspiring to use a cell phone. As a result of this restriction, Greenhouse was required to meet with his visitors through a glass partition on at least two occasions. During this restricted visitation period, Greenhouse submitted a formal complaint to the warden of the correctional facility. Greenhouse's contact visitation privileges were restored on July 16, 2015.
On December 9, 2015, following the denial for relief in the first and second step, Greenhouse filed a petition seeking judicial review of the disciplinary action in the 19th JDC. Specifically, Greenhouse alleged that the policy under which he was punished allowed for the arbitrary restriction of visitation privileges without cause or reason. Greenhouse further alleged that the policy in question allowed for arbitrary punishment without satisfying due process and/or fair notice prior to sanction. Finally, Greenhouse alleged that the prison's visiting regulation practices impinged upon his constitutional rights without being reasonably related to any legitimate disciplinary interest.
On August 3, 2016, the Commissioner of the district court found that Greenhouse had not suffered "a substantial right violation" and had thus failed to state a cause of action. The Commissioner further stated that Greenhouse's claim was moot, because his visitation privileges were restored on July 16, 2015. On October 13, 2016, the district court agreed with and adopted the Commissioner's Report and dismissed Greenhouse's suit, without prejudice, as moot. Greenhouse now appeals the judgment of the district court.
The office of the Commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court 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 judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. Hakim-El-Mumit v. Stalder, 2003-2549 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/29/04), 897 So.2d 112, 113 n. 1. --------
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Greenhouse assigns the following as error:
(1) The district court erred and abused its discretion by erroneously adopting the Commissioner's report and recommendation, without it ever being established, beyond the mere statement in the report and recommendation, that there was no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur, and that interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.
(2) The district court erred and abused its discretion by failing to reverse or modify the department's decision, where the record and evidence strongly reflected that the department acted arbitrarily and in excess of statutory authority of the department in restricting appellant and visitor's visitation privileges without cause or reason, and in subjecting appellant to an additional "upgraded" punishment without providing any form of due process fair notice of such rule before being sanctioned for its violation, which prejudiced appellant's substantial rights under due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appellate review of a district court's judgment in a suit for judicial review under La. R.S. 15:1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. Hakim-El-Mumit v. Stalder, 2003-2549 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/29/04), 897 So.2d 113-14. As such, the de novo standard of review shall be applied.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1177 governs the judicial review of administrative acts against inmates by LDPSC. Specifically, Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1177(A)(9) states:
The court may reverse or modify the 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 abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
(f) Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by firsthand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.
The primary issue of this case is whether this court may modify or reverse the decision to impose disciplinary action against Greenhouse. As provided in La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9), this court may modify or reverse the decision to impose disciplinary action on Greenhouse only if his substantial rights were prejudiced by the disciplinary action in question. The Due Process Clause does not protect every change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 478, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2297, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Further, lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights. Fulford v. Blackburn, 470 So.2d 515, 516 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1985). Greenhouse was temporarily placed on a non-contact visitation list because he was found guilty of conspiring to use a cell phone. This temporarily restricted visitation period does not rise to the level of a substantial right violation, which means that the district court had no authority to intervene. See Carthan v. Louisiana Dep't of Public Safety and Corrections, 2015-0102 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/15/16), 2016 WL 1535202 (unpublished).
Further, Greenhouse's claims are moot. An issue is moot when a judgment or decree on that issue has been "deprived of practical significance" or "made abstract or purely academic." In re E.W., 2009-1589 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/7/10), 38 So.3d 1033, 1037. Thus, a case is moot when a rendered judgment or decree can serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or effect. Id. If the case is moot, there is no subject matter on which the judgment of the court can operate. Id. In the present case, Greenhouse's contact visitation privileges were restored on July 16, 2015. Accordingly, a rendered judgment would serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or effect. Therefore, Greenhouse's claims were properly dismissed as moot.
DECREE
The judgment of the 19th JDC dismissing the suit, without prejudice, as moot is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, Keithian Greenhouse.
AFFIRMED.