PARISH v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS (2026)

Nathaniel Parish, a pro se inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DPSC”), appeals the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court dismissing without prejudice his petition for writ of mandamus, in which he seeks documents with respect to his conviction related to the death of a fellow prisoner. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 23, 2025, Parish filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting documents under the Public Records Law. The petition was related to his request he sent to DPSC in December 2023, wherein he sought access to a report by the dorm officer on duty on September 28, 2004, as well as the dorm officer's statement that was read into the record during Parish's disciplinary hearing held in October 2004. Parish was ultimately found guilty of second degree murder of a fellow inmate, Gary Olsen. Parish was sentenced to the mandatory term of life at hard labor without benefits. This Court upheld his conviction and sentence. State v. Parish, 2006-2271 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/4/07), 956 So. 2d 851 (unpublished), writ denied, 2007-1169 (La. 12/7/07), 969 So. 2d 628.

Parish's records request was sent to DPSC, after being redirected several times. On April 23, 2024, Parish filed a writ of mandamus seeking the records requested or an explanation as to why the records requested are not subject to disclosure. In response, Commissioner Kina Kimble issued a Mandamus Service Order. DPSC filed a motion for status conference which was held December 4, 2024.¹ DPSC argued that Parish was not a “person” entitled to the records in accordance with La. R.S. 44:31.1. After the conference, Commissioner Kimble recommended that the mandamus relief be denied, without prejudice. However, she denied the request for mandamus based on inapplicable case law concerning free access to certain records. On January 2, 2025 Parish filed a document entitled: “Traverse to Commissioner's Finding's.” The district court reviewed the writ of mandamus and Parish's traversal de novo, adopted the Commissioner's written recommendation, and dismissed the writ of mandamus. Parish now appeals. (R. 55)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

At the outset, we note that Parish does not assert any assignments of errors, but on appeal argues, in general, that DPSC has wrongfully refused his records request. After de novo review of the entire record, the district court rendered judgment on January 16, 2025, adopting the recommendations set forth in the Commissioner's report, dismissing the matter without prejudice.

In an appellate review of a district court's judgment in a suit for judicial review under La. R.S. 15:1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. As such, the de novo standard of review shall be applied. Greenhouse v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2017-0316 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/1/17), 2017 WL 4946864, at *2 (unpublished), writ denied, 2017-2122 (La. 1/8/19), 259 So. 3d 1021.

If a request for public records is denied by the custodian, the person must first institute civil proceedings for a writ of mandamus at the district court level. See La. R.S. 44:35(A). After the district court rules in the civil proceeding, the person may seek an appeal of the district court's action, if he desires. See La. R.S. 44:35. See also State ex rel. McKnight v. State, 98-2258 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/3/98), 742 So. 2d 894, 895 (per curiam).

LAW AND DISCUSSION

In general, the public's right of access to public records is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Louisiana Constitution. La. Const. Ann. Art. XII, § 3. This right of access must be liberally construed in favor of free and unrestricted access. Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So. 2d 933, 936 (La. 1984). Only a specific and unequivocal law can limit the fundamental right of access to public records. See La. Const. Ann. Art. XII, § 3; See also Johnson v. Stalder, 1997–0584 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/98), 754 So. 2d 246, 248.

Providing access to public records is the responsibility and duty of the custodian and his employees, who shall present any public record to any person of the age of majority who so requests, except as otherwise provided in the Public Records Law. See La. R.S. 44:31, 44:32(A). Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:3 5(A) pertinently states that any person who has been denied the right to inspect, copy, reproduce, or obtain a copy or reproduction of a record under the Public Records Law may institute proceedings for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

A mandamus action for production of a public record requires a contradictory hearing. Fussell v. Reed, 95-0398 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/95), 664 So. 2d 1214, 1216. See also Johnson v. Stewart, 55,631 (La. App. 2 Cir. 7/17/24), 399 So. 3d 57, 60.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:35(B) states, in part:

In any suit filed under [La. R.S. 44:35(A)], the court has jurisdiction to enjoin the custodian from withholding records or to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the production of any records improperly withheld from the person seeking disclosure. The court shall determine the matter de novo and the burden is on the custodian to sustain his action.

The six requirements for invoking the mandamus remedy under the Act are: (1) a request must be made; (2) the requester must be a “person,”; (3) the request must be made to a “custodian,”; (4) the document requested must be a “public record,”; (5) the document requested must exist; and (6) there must be a failure by the custodian to respond to the request. La. R.S. 44:31, La. R.S. 44:31(B)(3), La. R.S. 44:34, La. R.S. 44:35. However, the burden of proving that a public record is not subject to inspection, copying, or reproduction remains with the custodian. La. R.S. 44:31(B); La. R.S. 44:31.1. As explained in Johnson v. Stewart, 399 So. 3d at 60:

The general rule set forth in La. R.S. 44:31 is that “any person of the age of majority” may make a public records request. [Louisiana Revised Statutes] 44:31.1 excludes certain individuals from the definition of a “person” under the Public Records Law. Under this statutory exception, a “person,” for purposes of the Public Records Law, is defined to exclude an individual: (1) who is a convicted felon; (2) who is in custody pursuant to the sentence for that felony; (3) who has exhausted his appellate remedies; and (4) who is not limiting the grounds for his request to those items to be used to file for post-conviction relief under La. C. Cr. P. Art. 930.3.

As records custodian, DPSC had the burden of proving that Parish was not entitled to the requested document. La. R.S. 44:35(B). The argument that he was not a “person” pursuant to the exception in La. R.S. 44:31.1, or any other reason the district court relies upon, must be set forth in the contradictory hearing.² See Wiggins v. District Attorney East Baton Rouge Parish, 2007-2398 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/2/08), 2008 WL 2064979, *2 (unpublished), writ not considered, 2008-1208 (La. 9/19/08), 992 So. 2d 960; see also Johnson, 399 So. 3d at 60. As such, DPSC did not establish that Parish's Public Records request failed to meet the requirements under La. R.S. 44:35.

Herein, Parish filed a writ of mandamus requesting access to documents under the Public Records Law. We point out that this differs from a request for free copies of documents based on jurisprudence providing for such access, as Parish was not required to show particularized need. Therefore, it was legal error to apply this incorrect standard to Parish's request. See State v. Williams, 2025-0423 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/18/25), 2025 WL 2389298. See also State ex rel. Simmons v. State, 1993-0275 (La. 12/16/94), 647 So. 2d 1094 (per curiam).

The Public Records Law governing mandamus envisions a contradictory hearing to determine whether Parish is entitled to the records he seeks. See Vandenweghe v. Par. of Jefferson, 11-52 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/24/11), 70 So. 3d 51, 59, writ denied, 2011-1333 (La. 9/30/11), 71 So. 3d 289. The Public Records Law imposes upon the custodian the burden of establishing any exception or exemption. Id. at 60. In the instant case, without a contradictory hearing, the district court erred in summarily dismissing the writ of mandamus without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the district court's judgment dismissing the petition for writ for mandamus without prejudice is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $656.00 are assessed against Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to the State's Brief, the status conference was held via zoom.

2.   The record is devoid as to evidence that DPSC inquired into Parish's status as a “person” pursuant to the Public Records Law. Further, DPSC did not file an answer or other response to the mandamus request.

BALFOUR, J.

Penzato, J., concurs Theriot, J., concurs