Opinion
No. 2010 CA 1622.
May 6, 2011.
ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NO. 588, 305 HONORABLE TIMOTHY E. KELLEY, JUDGE PRESIDING.
James D. "Buddy" Caldwell, Attorney General, Patricia H. Wilton, Assistant Attorney General, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Appellee, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
Charles E. Lewis, Lake Providence, Louisiana, Plaintiff/Appellant, In Proper Person.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, JJ.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff, Charles E. Lewis, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (the Department), challenges a judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice certain defendants in this matter as well as his request for monetary relief. We affirm.
On March 9, 2010, plaintiff filed this petition for judicial review pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:1177, seeking review of the final agency decision in Administrative Remedy Procedure No. HDQ-2009-1549. In his petition, plaintiff sought injunctive relief and money damages based upon, inter alia, the wrongful handling of his legal mail. In addition to the Department, plaintiff named as defendants Governor Bobby Jindal, Secretary of State Jay Dardenne, Judicial Administrator Jo Bruce of the 19th Judicial District Court, Warden Steve Rader and Captain Riley Palmer.
The commissioner issued a report on May 11, 2010, noting that in a request for judicial review, the only party that is authorized to grant relief is the Department, and the administrative action filed by plaintiff is directed to the Department. See LSA-R.S. 15:1177A(1)(b). The commissioner stated that because Secretary James LeBlanc is the party who accepts service on behalf of the Department, Secretary LeBlanc is the only proper party defendant in this matter. Accordingly, the commissioner recommended that the district court recognize, on its own motion, and grant an exception of no cause of action, dismissing with prejudice the other listed defendants.
Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1177A(1)(b) provides, in pertinent part: The only proper party defendant is the Department of Public Safety and Corrections when seeking judicial review of an administrative decision, excluding decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages, rendered pursuant to any administrative remedy procedures under this Part.
With regard to plaintiff's claim for monetary damages, the commissioner noted a jurisdictional conflict, stating that while a request for judicial review is heard based on the appellate jurisdiction of the court, a claim for damages must be heard based on the original jurisdiction of the district court. See LSA-R.S. 15:1177C. The commissioner further noted that the legislature has provided that the venue for a claim asserting damages must be raised in the parish where the petitioner was housed when the cause of action arose. See LSA-R.S. 15:1184F. Thus, the commissioner recommended that plaintiff's claim for monetary damages be dismissed with prejudice.
Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1177C provides, in pertinent part:
This Section shall not apply to delictual actions for injury or damages, however styled or captioned. Delictual actions for injury or damages shall be filed separately as original civil actions.
Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1184F provides:
The exclusive venue for delictual actions for injury or damages shall be the parish where the prison is situated to which the prisoner was assigned when the cause of action arose. Upon consent of all parties, the court may transfer the suit to a parish in which venue would otherwise be proper.
On May 26, 2010, the district court rendered judgment, adopting as reasons the commissioner's report, and granted on its own motion an exception of no cause of action, dismissing with prejudice defendants Governor Jindal, Secretary of State Dardenne, Jo Bruce, Warden Rader, and Captain Palmer, and further dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's request for monetary relief. The court ordered that the matter proceed as a request for judicial review of the final agency decision rendered in this matter. Plaintiff appealed.
After a thorough review of the record, as well as relevant law and jurisprudence, we find that the district court's reasons for judgment, as set forth in the commissioner's recommendation, adequately explain the decision, and we find no error of law. Accordingly, we affirm the May 26, 2010 judgment of the district court in accordance with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1.B. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff, Charles E. Lewis.