HANNA v. BICKHAM (2026)

Mark Hanna, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DPSC”), appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for judicial review of an administrative remedy procedure (sometimes, “ARP”) grievance without prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In this matter, petitioner submitted an “ARP grievance” on December 27, 2024 to the warden of Rayburn Correctional Center in Angie, Louisiana (Case No. RCC-2024-977).¹ On the same date, petitioner's grievance was screened and rejected. The response stated that established rules and procedures were not followed, the complaint was too lengthy, and the handwriting was not legible at times. The response further stated that if a request is unclear or the volume of attached material is too great, it may be rejected and returned to the offender with a request for clarity or summarization on one additional page, relying on LAC 22:I:325(I)(1)(c)(i)(k). The response instructed petitioner to resubmit the grievance, summarized on no more than one page in order for the request to be considered.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge on January 29, 2025. Petitioner alleged that he submitted a group of at least four ARP grievances entitled as follows: (1) “Inmate Kingdom Prison Law Libraries Inadequate”; (2) “Delinquent Officer Use of Force Injury Tort Claim”; (3) “Delinquent Officer Malfeasance Injury Tort Claim”; and (4) “Delinquent Officer Mischief Injury Tort Claim.” Petitioner stated there may have been a fifth grievance entitled, “Inadequate Medical Care Injury Disfigurement Disability Claim.” Each of the grievances were alleged to be written on separate pages, but petitioner's grievances were rejected because the submission was illegible and too lengthy. Petitioner further alleged that each of the four ARP grievances included the following statement: “This is the First [Second or Third, etc.] to be filed together this day.” (Brackets in original.) Petitioner essentially contended that his separate grievances were wrongly considered as one grievance, but acknowledged that he submitted a group of grievances together.²

In accordance with La. R.S. 15:1178 and La. R.S. 15:1188, petitioner's suit was screened by the Commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the petition, or any portion of the petition, if the petition was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a cause of action, sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, or failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.³ The Commissioner concluded that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner's judicial review action.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Prisoner suits are subject to the administrative procedures of Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (“CARP”), La. R.S. 15:1171 et seq., which is the formal grievance mechanism that all offenders committed to the custody of DPSC must use before they may proceed with a suit in federal or state court. Alonzo v. Cain, 2014-0172 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/19/14), 154 So.3d 551, 553, writ denied, 2014-2165 (La. 12/8/14), 153 So.3d 445; LAC 22:I:325(D)(1). Under the provisions of CARP, an offender aggrieved by an adverse decision by DPSC rendered pursuant to the prescribed administrative remedies may seek judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. La. R.S. 15:1177(A). However, administrative decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages are expressly excluded from Section 1177(A).⁴ After exhausting all administrative remedies, tort actions must be filed separately as original civil actions pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177(C) and La. R.S. 15:1184(A)(2). Foster v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2012-0358 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/2/12), 111 So.3d 81, 82.

Pursuant to CARP, DPSC adopted rules and procedures governing the ARP process, including procedures for receiving, hearing and disposing of complaints and grievances by offenders against the State which arise while an offender is within the custody or under the supervision of DPSC. La. R.S. 15:1171(B); LAC 22:I:325. Pursuant thereto, the administrative remedy process for offender grievances may be initiated either by completing form OP-C-13-ARP-1 or by writing a letter to the warden containing the phrase: “This is a request for administrative remedy or ARP.” LAC 22:I.325(G)(1)(a)(i) & (iv).

Once an offender initiates the formal ARP process, the grievance is screened prior to being assigned to the first step in the two-step ARP process. LAC 22:I.325(I)(1). Through the screening process, the grievance is either accepted and processed or rejected for one of the reasons enumerated in LAC 22:I.325(I)(1)(c)(i)(a)-(l). An offender whose grievance is rejected during screening must correct the noted deficiencies and resubmit the request to the ARP screening officer. LAC 22:I.325(I)(1)(c)(iii). Allen v. Louisiana Dept. of Pub. Safety & Corr., 2020-0445 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/19/21), 320 So.3d 1175, 1177.

The ARP process must be exhausted before an offender may proceed with a suit in federal or state court. Guy v. Calvit, 2019-1675 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/5/20), 311 So.3d 362, 366. A request for an ARP that is rejected for any of the enumerated reasons in LAC 22:I:325(I)(1)(c)(i)(a)-(l) is not appealable to the second step; therefore, an offender has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies if his request is rejected during grievance screening. LAC 22:I.325(F)(3)(a)(viii) and 22:I:325(I)(1)(c)(iii)-(iv). Accordingly, an ARP must be accepted for proper exhaustion to occur, as exhaustion only occurs when a second step response had been issued on the merits. LAC 22:I.325(F)(3)(a)(viii). If an offender fails to exhaust available administrative remedies, the district court and the appellate court lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim. Guy, 2019-1675, 311 So.3d at 366; Allen, 320 So.3d at 1177. Further, if the administrative remedy process has not been completed at the time the petition is filed, the petition shall be dismissed without prejudice. La. R.S. 15:1172(C).

In this matter, petitioner's grievance was rejected prior to the first step of the two-step ARP process. Having failed to remedy the deficiencies noted in the response and having failed to reach the second step, petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Therefore, neither the district court nor this court have subject matter jurisdiction to review petitioner's claim. After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the district court in dismissing the petition for judicial review without prejudice.

DECREE

For the above reasons, we affirm the district court's screening judgment, dismissing Mark Hanna's petition for judicial review without prejudice. All costs associated with the appeal are assessed against appellant, Mark Hanna.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner's ARP grievance was not included in the record.

2.   It is noted that a grievance may be rejected if the offender requests a remedy for more than one incident (a multiple complaint) unless it involves an allegation of sexual abuse. LAC 22:I:325(I)(1)(c)(i)(g).

3.   The office of the 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. The Commissioner's written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. See La. R.S. 13:713(A); Hakim-EI-Mumit v. Stalder, 2003-2549 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/29/04), 897 So.2d 112, 113 n. 1.

4.   After the Supreme Court's decision in Pope v. State, 99-2559 (La. 6/29/01), 792 So.2d 713, the legislature amended La. R.S. 15:1177(A) to exclude tort claims from judicial review. See 2002 La. Acts, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 89, § 2.

HESTER, J.