Opinion
2012 CA 0780
12-21-2012
RON C. RICHARD v. BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLE
Ron C. Richard Terrebonne Parish Work Release Houma, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant In Proper Person William 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
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
No. 605,203
Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
Ron C. Richard
Terrebonne Parish Work Release
Houma, Louisiana
Plaintiff/Appellant
In Proper Person
William Kline
Baton Rouge/ Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
McCLENDON, J .
Ron C. Richard, formerly an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (Department), challenges a screening judgment of the district court dismissing his appeal without service and with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for injunctive relief or any other relief and for being frivolous and abusive. The judgment further ordered that the dismissal be considered and recorded as a "strike" in accordance with LSA-R.S. 15:1178 and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, LSA-R.S. 15:1181, et seq. We affirm.
Richard seeks to enjoin the Department from supervising his release on good time parole for the balance of his sentence, asserting violations of due process, equal protection rights, ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and his right against slavery. He also makes a "breach of contract" argument that the Department's good time rate option form did not mention parole supervision requirements. Lastly, Richard argues that he bought and paid for his early release by forfeiting his right to receive incentive wages in order to receive additional good time credits.
The commissioner's screening report found that this Court has rejected all of Richard's arguments ad nauseum and that Richard's suit was frivolous, "contesting old, worn out issues that have become abusive of the Court's limited time and resources." The commissioner's screening report more than adequately addresses all of Richard's arguments and thoroughly explains the decision made by the district court in its judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and issue this summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2-16.2.A(2), (4), (5), and (6). All costs of this appeal are assessed to Ron C. Richard.
AFFIRMED.