DERRICK JEROME ALLEN v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS (2025)

Derrick Jerome Allen, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), currently housed at Rayburn Correctional Center, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review, without prejudice, as untimely. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 7, 2023, Mr. Allen filed a petition for judicial review of an adverse ruling by the DPSC in his Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) No. EHCC-2023-600, seeking review in accordance with La. R.S. 15:1171, et seq. In his petition, which he signed on December 1, 2023, Mr. Allen contended that he is entitled to be transferred to another correctional facility similar to other inmates who have been transferred under comparable circumstances. The DPSC denied Mr. Allen's request for relief in a final decision issued via a second-step response on October 17, 2023. Mr. Allen attached the DPSC's final decision to his petition for judicial review, along with a form that referenced the ARP number and Mr. Allen's name as well as the respective dates that the first and second responses to his ARP were sent and received. The form attached to the second-step response indicated that Mr. Allen received the second-step response on November 8, 2023, but the “DATE ACCEPTED” line at the top of the form attached to the second-step response was blank.

Upon receipt of Mr. Allen's petition, the Commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court ¹ issued a Rule to Show Cause on December 12, 2023, pointing out that La. R.S. 15:1177 imposes a thirty-day peremptory time limit on all inmate appeals, starting from the date of receipt of the final agency decision to the date of mailing the appeal to the court for filing. Noting that the DPSC decision was issued on October 17, 2023, and that Mr. Allen's petition was not received by the district court until December 7, 2023, the Commissioner stated that, “[i]t is not clear from the attachments submitted by [Mr. Allen] as to when he signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the final agency decision.” The Commissioner ordered Mr. Allen to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed based on his failure to timely seek judicial review.

Mr. Allen responded to the rule, contending that his petition for judicial review was timely filed within thirty days of his receipt of the DPSC's final decision. Mr. Allen additionally referenced the “mailbox rule,” contending that an inmate's pleadings are deemed filed once handed over to prison officials for mailing to the court.

After Mr. Allen's response was filed with the district court on January 26, 2024, the Commissioner issued a screening report on February 12, 2024, concluding that Mr. Allen had not provided any proof “that he did not receive the final agency decision until after November 7, 2023.” Without such proof, the Commissioner noted that Mr. Allen would have needed to file an appeal within thirty days of October 17, 2023, when the final DPSC decision was rendered. Because Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review was not filed until December 7, 2023, the Commissioner concluded it was untimely. Citing the thirty-day peremptive time period in La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(1)(a)² , the Commissioner recommended dismissal of Mr. Allen's administrative appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Commissioner further noted that unless Mr. Allen “can show timeliness by presenting a receipt proving he received the final decision sometime after November 7, 2023, ․ this appeal was untimely on the face of the record and must be dismissed.”

On March 4, 2024, Mr. Allen filed a response, which we consider to be a traversal to the Commissioner's screening report. However, that response lacked proof that Mr. Allen did not receive DPSC's final decision until after November 7, 2023. Thereafter, in a screening judgment signed on March 6, 2024, the district court adopted the written recommendation of the Commissioner and ordered that Mr. Allen's untimely suit be dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Allen appealed, contending that he received the DPSC's final decision on November 8, 2023, as shown by the form attached to the October 17, 2023 second-step response, which he attached to his petition for judicial review. On appeal, Mr. Allen claims that his petition, signed by him on December 1, 2023, was timely filed on December 7, 2023, as he had until December 8, 2023, to seek judicial review.

DISCUSSION

An inmate is required to file a petition seeking review of a final administrative decision within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision. La. R.S. 15:1177(A). If the petition for judicial review is not timely filed, the jurisdiction of the reviewing district court does not attach. Pierre v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2020-0480 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/30/20) (unpublished), 2020 WL 7770405, *3. The thirty-day time period provided in La. R.S. 15:1177(A) is peremptive, rather than prescriptive, and may not be interrupted or suspended. Bourque v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2016-1342 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 218 So. 3d 1041, 1043. Generally, this court's appellate review is limited to the evidence that was in the record at the time the district court rendered its judgment. Bourque, 218 So. 3d at 1044. On review of the district court's judgment, an appellate court owes no deference to the district court's findings or legal conclusions. Holder v. LeBlanc, 2019-1268 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/11/20) (unpublished), 2020 WL 2315589, *2.

In filing his petition for judicial review, Mr. Allen attached a copy of the DPSC's Second Step Response Form signed by the Secretary on October 17, 2023. Mr. Allen attached a second DPSC form showing the dates that the DPSC's first and second-step responses to Mr. Allen's ARP No. EHCC-2023-600 were “SENT” and “REC'D.” This form indicates that Mr. Allen received the second-step response on November 8, 2023. We emphasize that this form, which appears to be on the face of an envelope for the purpose of documenting pertinent “sent” and “received” dates necessary for timely processing of ARP complaints, was created by the DPSC.³

Accordingly, after a thorough de novo review of the record, we find that this form, although not signed, is sufficient to prove that Mr. Allen received the DPSC's Second Step Response Form on November 8, 2023. We further find that this form provided adequate proof from which the Commissioner could have deduced that Mr. Allen received the DPSC's Second Step Response Form on November 8, 2023, thus making his petition for judicial review filed on December 7, 2023, timely pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(1)(a).

Thus, we find the district court erred in adopting the recommendation of the Commissioner and dismissing Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review without prejudice as untimely. Considering our determination herein, we find it unnecessary to address Mr. Allen's arguments concerning the “mailbox rule.”

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the March 6, 2024 judgment of the district court dismissing Derrick Jerome Allen's petition for judicial review without prejudice is reversed. This matter is remanded for further proceedings. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $520.00 are assessed against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

I agree with the majority opinion. The record adequately, albeit not perfectly, shows that Mr. Allen received DPSC's final decision on November 8, 2023, and then timely filed his petition for judicial review on December 7, 2023.

But, if further or more clear proof were needed, I point out that it is DPSC that adopted and administers the administrative remedy procedure for receiving, hearing, and disposing of any and all grievances by offenders against the State, the governor, DPSC, or its employees, under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, La. R.S. 15:1171-1179. It is also DPSC that has promulgated rules and procedures for handling ARPs, which are set forth in Louisiana Administrative Code 22:1:235. Thus, it appears that DPSC is in a better position than an inmate to make sure that its rules and procedures clearly and plainly document dates that are crucial to the administrative remedy procedure.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, as I would affirm. This court's review of the district court's screening judgment is limited to the administrative record and the petition for judicial review. The burden of proof is with the petitioner, Mr. Allen. See Barnes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2024-0042 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/20/24), ___ So.3d ___, ____, 2024 WL 4245564, *2, writ denied, 2024-01339 (La. 1/28/25), 399 So.3d 415. Based on my review of the record, I conclude that the unsigned document relied on by the majority does not support Mr. Allen's claim that his petition for judicial review was timely filed. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the reviewing district court did not attach. Pierre v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2020-0480 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/30/20) (unpublished), 2020 WL 7770405, *3. Mr. Allen's receipt-acknowledgment form appended to the second-step response is not signed or dated by Mr. Allen, as noted by the majority opinion the “DATE ACCEPTED” line at the top of the form is blank. Additionally, there is no district court stamp on the form indicating on what date the form was filed in the district court. Mr. Allen's arguments in his pro se appellate brief are insufficient to prove the date he acknowledged receipt of the DPSC decision.

Furthermore, the “mailbox rule” states that a pro se inmate's petition for judicial review is deemed filed at the time it was delivered to the prison authorities for forwarding to the district court. See Bourque v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2016-1342 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 218 So.3d 1041, 1044; Tatum v. Lynn, 93-1559 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/20/94), 637 So.2d 796, 797. The record does not contain any evidence of when Mr. Allen actually delivered his petition to prison officials for mailing. However, even giving Mr. Allen the benefit of the doubt, the earliest date that he could have given prison officials his completed petition for mailing was December 1, 2023, which is the date that Mr. Allen signed his petition for judicial review. See Jones v. LeBlanc, 2014-1005 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/13/14) (unpublished), 2014 WL 7332301, *2. That date is also more than thirty days after DPSC rendered its final decision.

The only date that is clear from the record is that Mr. Allen filed his petition on December 7, 2023, more than 50 days after DPSC rendered its final decision on October 17, 2023. The Commissioner gave Mr. Allen the opportunity to produce evidence of the date he received the final decision, but in his response, he failed to do so. When an inmate does not provide proof of the date of receipt of the final agency decision, the screening judgment dismissing the inmate's appeal should be affirmed. See Spikes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2022-0462 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/4/22) (unpublished), 2022 WL 16704952, at *2; and see Haynes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2021-0892 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/25/22), 341 So.3d 590, 592; Burks v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2014-1470 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/3 0/15) (unpublished), 2015 WL 3404793, at *2; and Jones, 2014 WL 7332301, at *2.

For these reasons, I find that the record amply supports the screening judgment of the district court dismissing Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review as untimely. I would affirm that judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1.   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). Pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1178 and La. R.S. 15:1188, the district court is required to screen all prisoner suits prior to requiring service on the DPSC to determine if the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Sanders v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2023-0098 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/15/23), 376 So. 3d 139, 141 n.5

2.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1177(A)(1)(a) provides that an inmate aggrieved by an adverse decision of the DPSC, may, “within thirty days after receipt of the decision,” seek judicial review of the decision in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.

3.   The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, set forth in La. R.S. 15:1171-1179, provides that the DPSC may adopt an administrative remedy procedure for receiving, hearing, and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by offenders against the state, the governor, the DPSC, or its employees. The adopted procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling the complaints and grievances to which they apply. La. R.S. 15:1171(B); Barnes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2024-0042 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/20/24), ___ So. 3d ___, ___, 2024 WL 4245564, *2, writ denied, 2024-01339 (La. 1/28/25), 399 So. 3d 415.

MILLER, J.

Greene, J. concurs with reasons. Wolfe, J. dissents and assigns reasons.