Lewis v. La. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr.

Full title: ADRIAN LEWIS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 5, 2015

NUMBER 2014 CA 1838 (La. Ct. App. Jun. 5, 2015)

Opinion

NUMBER 2014 CA 1838

06-05-2015

ADRIAN LEWIS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Adrian Lewis Angola, LA Plaintiff/Appellant In Proper Person William L. Kline Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

WHIPPLE, C.J.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Docket Number C628828

Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding

Adrian Lewis
Angola, LA
Plaintiff/Appellant
In Proper Person
William L. Kline
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. WHIPPLE, C.J.

Plaintiff, Adrian Lewis, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("the Department"), appeals a judgment of the district court that dismissed without prejudice his petition for judicial review, on the basis that he failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. For the following reasons, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lewis filed a request for relief under the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act ("CARP"), LSA-R.S. 15:1177 et seq., assigned number LSP-2013-3557, with the warden at Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, where he is housed. The record does not contain a copy of the initial grievance filed by Lewis, but a copy of a November 25, 2013 response, denying Lewis's grievance, indicates that he is asserting a lost property claim.

On March 7, 2014, Lewis filed a petition for judicial review as related to his lost property claim, to which he attached a copy of the warden's response denying his claim. Since Lewis attached only a copy of the warden's response and did not attach a copy of the Department's final decision, the commissioner issued an order on April 2, 2014 for Lewis to show the requisite proof of exhaustion of the available administrative remedies.

In response, Lewis filed a pleading titled "Motion in Opposition to Commissioner's Order," in which he averred that he had attempted to forward his lost property claim to the Department for a second-step review, but the envelope was returned to him with a notation stating, "inmate doesn't know what he wants." He further contended that he was denied an avenue to proceed to the second-step review process because "first step responses are not provided with a manila envelope to do so, but [are only provided with a] plain '10 business envelope."

Apparently finding no merit to Lewis's opposition memorandum, the commissioner issued a screening report to the district court judge, recommending that Lewis's petition be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on his failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies.

Prior to the rendition of the district court's judgment, Lewis filed a traversal to the commissioner's recommendation, contending that offenders are not required to move to the "next step" when pursuing a lost property claim.¹ On June 10, 2014, the district court issued a judgment in accordance with the commissioner's recommendation, dismissing Lewis's petition without prejudice. From this judgment, Lewis now appeals.²

1 Attached to this pleading is a copy of the Department's response in a prior claim made by Lewis in 2010, assigned number LSP #2010-3193, wherein the Department acknowledged that Lewis exhausted the available administrative review procedures. This document, which pertains to a prior claim with a different assigned number, is immaterial to the claims raised herein.

2 Lewis initially sought review of this judgment by filing a "Notice of Intent to Seek Supervisory Review," which was treated by this court as an application for supervisory writs. This court noted that the judgment was a final appealable judgment and, therefore, the writ application was granted for the limited purpose of remanding the case to the district court with instructions to grant Lewis an appeal of the judgment, should Lewis submit an order for appeal by November 10, 2014. Adrian Lewis v. Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections, 2014-1171 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 10/21/14), (unpublished writ action). Lewis subsequently filed a motion and order for appeal on November 10, 2014.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1171-1179, the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act ("CARP"), provides that the Department or sheriff may adopt administrative remedy procedures for receiving, hearing, and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by offenders against the state, the governor, the Department or its employees. The adopted procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling complaints and grievances to which they apply. LSA-R.S. 15:1171(B). The district court is precluded from considering an inmate's complaint until he has exhausted the available administrative remedy procedures. Where an inmate fails to exhaust available administrative remedies, the district court and the appellate court lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim, and the suit shall be dismissed without prejudice. LSA-R.S. 15:1172(C); Lewis v. Rogers, 2005-1138 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 6/9/06), 938 So. 2d 1025, 1026; Rochon v. Young, 2008-1349 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 2/13/09), 6 So. 3d 890, 892, writ denied, 2009-0745 (La. 1/29/10), 25 So. 3d 824, cert. dismissed, 560 U.S. 921, 130 S.Ct. 3325, 176 L.Ed. 2d 1216 (2010); Dickens v. Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, 2011-0176 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 9/14/11), 77 So. 3d 70, 74-75.

The administrative rules and procedures promulgated pursuant to CARP are set forth in Section 325 of Title 22, Part I of the Louisiana Administrative Code. This code section sets forth general rules governing the processing of offender grievances and includes a separate subsection governing lost property claims such as the one at issue herein. LAC 22:I.325(L); Foster v. Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections ex rel. Louisiana State Penitentiary, 2012-0349 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 11/2/12) (unpublished opinion), writ denied, 2013-0070 (La. 5/24/13), 117 So. 3d 100 ("[T]he general ARP procedure does not apply to lost property claims. Rather, lost property claims are to be handled through a specialized administrative remedy procedure ...").

Pursuant to the general ARP procedural rules, offenders must use a two-step administrative review process before they can proceed with a suit in federal or state court. LAC 22:1, §325(J). However, contrary to Lewis's argument, the specialized rules governing lost property claims also require compliance with a second-step review process before an inmate can proceed with filing a suit. Specifically, the specialized lost property rules provide that an inmate who is not satisfied with a lost property claim resolution should indicate such "by checking the appropriate box on the lost personal property claim response" and then submit this to the screening officer within five days. The screening officer is then obligated to forward the claim to the chief of operations/office of adult services for review. LAC 22:1, §325(L)(1)(d); Foster, 2012-0349 at p. 2, n.8.

Here, Lewis submitted the "LOST PERSONAL PROPERTY CLAIM RESPONSE," reflecting that it was denied by the warden. However, there is no checkmark by Lewis in "the appropriate box on the lost property claim response," indicating that he was not satisfied with the claim denial. Insofar as Lewis contends that he was unable to proceed to the second step on the basis that "first step responses are not provided with a manila envelope to do so, but [are only provided with a] plain '10 business envelope," his appropriate remedy is to file an application for mandamus to force the proper administrative officer to provide the appropriate means for him to proceed to the second step. Foster, 2012-0349 at p. 3.

Moreover, even if we were to find that the envelope was not provided, failure to provide a manilla envelope would not entitle Lewis to move on to the next step as an untimely response or failure to respond. The general rules provide for specific deadlines for the Department to respond, and further provide that expiration of the response-time limits, without a Department response, shall entitle the inmate to move on to the next step in the process. However, the specialized procedures governing lost property claims do not have a similar provision setting forth specific deadlines within which the Department must act or allowing the inmate to proceed to the next step at the expiration of any particular time limit.³ Foster, 2012-0349 at p. 2; LAC 22:1, §§325(J)(1)(c) & 325(L).

3 Thus, the failure of the Department to respond in a timely manner is not an issue herein. Cf. Harper v. La. Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections, 2014-1320 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 3/12/15). ___ So. 3d ___.

After careful review, we find that Lewis has failed to provide proof that he exhausted the available administrative review procedures prior to filing suit in the district court. Specifically, there is nothing before us to indicate that Lewis checked "the appropriate box on the lost property claim response" to indicate that he was not satisfied with the claim denial, as required by LAC 22:1, §325(L)(1)(d). Thus, the district court is precluded from entertaining Lewis's complaint until he has exhausted the administrative remedy procedures governing lost property claims. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of Lewis's claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust the required administrative review procedures was proper.

CONCLUSION

After a thorough review, we find that the record supports the June 10, 2014 judgment of the district court, dismissing Lewis's petition for judicial review without prejudice. Accordingly, the judgment is hereby affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff/appellant, Adrian Lewis.

AFFIRMED.