Opinion
2020 CA 0093
11-09-2020
DENNIS THOMAS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Dennis D. Thomas Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, Louisiana In Proper Person/Appellant Heather C. Hood Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney 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. C685062, Sec. 26 The Honorable Richard "Chip" Moore, Judge Presiding Dennis D. Thomas
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, Louisiana In Proper Person/Appellant Heather C. Hood
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ. HOLDRIDGE, J.
Petitioner, Dennis Thomas, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (the Department), appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for judicial review of ARP No. LSP-2019-0620. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
On March 16, 2019, while incarcerated at Louisiana State Penitentiary, Thomas was sprayed with a chemical agent by Captain Jerry Stout for fighting with another inmate in their cell and ignoring direct verbal orders to stop. Once the offenders complied and were separated, Thomas was seen by medical personnel and then placed in the shower for decontamination.
Thereafter, Thomas filed ARP No. LSP-2019-0620, alleging the decontamination procedure constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his constitutional rights. Thomas sought declaratory relief and punitive, compensatory, and nominal damages. The ARP proceeded through administrative review and was denied. On July 8, 2019, Thomas filed a pro se petition for judicial review of ARP No. LSP-2019-0620 in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. The matter was assigned to a commissioner for evaluation and to make a recommendation to the district court judge.
The office of 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. La. R.S. 13:713(A). The commissioner's written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R.S. 13:713(C)(5); see
On September 20, 2019, after screening the petition, the commissioner issued a report recommending that the petition be dismissed with prejudice because the Department's decision to deny relief was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly erroneous, nor was it in violation of Thomas's statutory or constitutional rights. Further, the commissioner noted the Nineteenth Judicial District Court was an improper venue for Thomas's claims for monetary damages.
On November 6, 2019, after a de novo review of the record, the district court signed a judgment that adopted the commissioner's report as its reasons and dismissed Thomas's appeal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. From this judgment, Thomas appeals.
We find the commissioner's recommendation, which we adopt herein and attach as "Appendix A," provides a correct analysis of the applicable law regarding Thomas's claim. Accordingly, after a thorough de novo review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly adopted the commissioner's report and dismissed Thomas's petition for judicial review. We note that the district court judgment includes language stating that the appeal was dismissed due to a failure to raise a cause of action upon which relief may be granted; however, the basis for the dismissal of the appeal was, as the commissioner's report states, that the Department's decision to deny relief was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly erroneous, nor was it in violation of Thomas's statutory or constitutional rights.
CONCLUSION
We issue this summary opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules-Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(5), (6), (7), (8) and (10). The November 6, 2019 judgment of the district court dismissing the petition of Dennis Thomas is hereby affirmed. No costs are assessed in this pauper suit.
AFFIRMED.
"Appendix
A"
Image materials not available for display.
Martinez v. Tanner, 2011-0692 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So.3d 1082, 1084 n.3, writ denied, 2011-2732 (La. 7/27/12), 93 So.3d 59.