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

Raymond Melancon, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“the Department”), housed at Rayburn Correctional Center (“RCC”) in Angie, Louisiana, appeals a district court judgment that dismissed his petition for judicial review with prejudice. For the following reasons, we reverse the district court's judgment and remand with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 24, 2024, Melancon was issued a disciplinary report for violating the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Inmates, found in Title 22, Part I, Sections 341 et seq. of the Louisiana Administrative Code. Specifically, he was charged with violating Rule Number 28 for an aggravated work offense. Following a hearing, the Disciplinary Board found Melancon guilty and sentenced him to one week loss of canteen and a job change. The board reasoned the disciplinary report was clear and precise; Melancon lacked a credible defense; and the officer's version was determined to be more credible than Melancon's version.

Melancon appealed the Disciplinary Board's decision to the warden, assigned as number RCC-2024-169, and the warden denied the appeal. In the warden's denial of the appeal, he indicated that Melancon claimed the Disciplinary Board Chairman denied his motion to review camera footage, which would have proven his innocence. The warden further indicated he reviewed the camera footage and recording of the disciplinary hearing. According to the warden, during the hearing, Melancon acknowledged that he left his work area without authorization, which is why his motion to review the camera footage was denied. The warden further stated that in the camera footage, Melancon could be seen in the TV room watching television and later playing dominos. Both times an officer could be seen going to the TV room to get Melancon to return to work. Based on the warden's review of the camera footage, he denied Melancon's appeal.

Thereafter, Melancon filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, asserting he was denied an “opportunity to present evidence that would have refuted a disciplinary report that causes [him] to spend another three years in prison before being eligible for parole.” On October 25, 2024, in a screening report issued pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1178(B), 15:1184(B), and 15:1188(A), the commissioner concluded Melancon had failed to state a cause of action or cognizable claim because he “does not have liberty interests in eligibility for parole consideration, canteen privileges, or job assignment.”¹ The commissioner noted, “[t]he sanctions imposed as a result of the disciplinary rule violation are not atypical or a dramatic departure from expected prison life and [Melancon] was given an opportunity to present his version of events at the disciplinary hearing.” Therefore, the commissioner recommended Melancon's petition for judicial review be dismissed, with prejudice, and without service on the Department, at Melancon's cost for failure to raise a “substantial right” violation and, thus, for failing to state a cognizable claim or cause of action for relief.

In accordance with the commissioner's screening report, on April 16, 2025, the district court rendered judgment dismissing Melancon's petition for judicial review, with prejudice and without service on the Department, and at Melancon's cost for failure to state a cause of action.² From this judgment, Melancon appeals.³

DISCUSSION

Melancon's petition for judicial review was filed in accordance with the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, codified as La. R.S. 15:1171, et seq. Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1177(A)(9) sets forth the appropriate standard of review by the district court, which functions as an appellate court when reviewing the Department's administrative decisions. A review is mandated to be conducted by the district court without a jury and must be confined to the record. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5); Hill v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2018-0809 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/21/18), 2018 WL 6716927 *2 (unpublished).

Pursuant to La R.S. 15:1177(A)(9), a district court may modify or reverse a decision of the Department in a prison disciplinary action “only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced” because the Department's findings or decisions are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; or (6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Drake v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2016-1356 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/2/17), 222 So.3d 1272, 1273. On review of the district court's judgment 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. Hill, 2018 WL 6716927 at *2.

Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. Discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected parameters of the sentence imposed by a court of law. Hill, 2018 WL 6716927 at *2 (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2301, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)). Thus, in order for Melancon's petition to state a cognizable claim for judicial review of a disciplinary matter, it must allege facts demonstrating that his “substantial rights” were prejudiced by the agency's decision. See Dorsey v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2018-0416 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/24/18), 259 So.3d 369, 371.

Melancon contends the district court misinterpreted Bosworth v. Whitley, 627 So.2d 629 (La. 1993), in holding he had no liberty interest in parole eligibility. We disagree. In Bosworth, the Louisiana Supreme Court observed “the Louisiana parole statutes do not create an expectancy of release or liberty interest in general[.]” Bosworth 627 So.2d at 633; see also Chaziza v. Stammerjohn, 858 F. App'x 228, 230 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The Constitution does not, itself, guarantee a liberty interest in parole. State law, however, may establish a liberty interest in parole when the state statutes or regulations create an ‘expectation of parole.’ ”) (citations omitted). However, “[i]nmates meeting standards contained in the law do have a statutory right to parole consideration[.]” Bosworth 627 So.2d at 633.

Melancon further contends he has a statutory right, and therefore, a substantial right to be considered for parole, and because he has a substantial right to be considered for parole, due process requires he be allowed to present evidence to refute a disciplinary charge that will inevitably require him to spend at least an additional three years in prison. According to Melancon, he requested that the camera footage be reviewed during the disciplinary hearing, but the officer who presided over the hearing refused his request.

Melancon asserts the camera footage would have disproven the allegations set forth in the disciplinary report. Melancon asserts that during the hearing, he stated that the canteen officer instructed him to go place the tickets on the table in Rain 4, which he alleged was part of his job. He contends that the hearing officer's interpretation of this statement as admission to leaving the work area without permission was unreasonable by any objective standard. He further contends the warden's response to his appeal of the write-up further illustrates the arbitrary nature of the disciplinary proceedings in this case.

The Department has promulgated rules for the handling of prisoner disciplinary matters entitled Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Inmates. LAC 22:I.341, et seq. Under the rules, a prisoner has certain rights when appearing before the Disciplinary Board, including the right to present evidence and witnesses on his behalf and to cross-examine his accuser, provided such request is relevant, not repetitious, not unduly burdensome to the institution, and/or not unduly hazardous to staff or offender safety. LAC 22:I.341(J)(5); Oliver v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2016-0695 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/17/17), 2017 WL 658738 *2 (unpublished). These procedural rights must be followed unless waived by the accused. LAC 22:I.341(G)(4)(b); McIntosh v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2022-1117 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/14/23), 364 So.3d 1158, 1161. The rules also provide certain procedural requirements for hearings by the Disciplinary Board, including the requirement that all hearings be recorded in their entirety and the recording preserved for a period of five years. LAC 22:I.341(G)(4)(c); Id.

In the present case, the Disciplinary Board denied Melancon's motion to review the camera footage. According to the warden, the motion was denied because Melancon acknowledged that he left his work area without authorization. The disciplinary report submitted by the officer stated that Melancon was given a direct verbal order to work in the canteen. The officer further stated Melancon went to the canteen but left and refused to work, and Melancon was given a direct verbal order by another officer to return to the canteen and help box up the canteen. The officer also stated Melancon refused the order and chose to sit in Rain 1 TV room and watch TV.

As noted above, a prisoner has certain rights when appearing before the Disciplinary Board, including the right to present evidence. See LAC 22:I.341(J)(5); Hill, 2018 WL 6716927 at *4 (reversing and remanding to the Disciplinary Board for a hearing to allow the prisoner to call witnesses and to review the tower video footage and body camera footage from the incident in question). Although the warden indicated that Melancon acknowledged he left the canteen without permission, Melancon disputes this assertion and contends the camera footage will disprove the allegations in the disciplinary report. We do not find that the request to present the camera footage in this case was repetitious, unduly burdensome to the institution, and/or unduly hazardous to staff or offender safety. The Disciplinary Board did not follow its own rules and procedures when it prohibited Melancon from presenting the camera footage. Accordingly, we find that the record clearly shows that Melancon did not receive the procedural guarantees to which he was entitled under the Department's own rules.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court's April 16, 2025 judgment dismissing Raymond Melancon's petition for judicial review and remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Board for a hearing at which Melancon shall be allowed to present the camera footage from the incident in question, in accordance with the Department's rules and procedures. All costs of this appeal in the amount of $571.00 are assessed against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

JUDGMENT REVERSED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

FOOTNOTES

1.   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) and (C)(5); Hanna v. Bickham, 2025-0566 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/25/26), 2026 WL 519623 *3 n.l.

2.   The commissioner's recommendation was mailed February 25, 2025. Melancon filed a traversal to the commissioner's recommendation on April 24, 2025, more than ten days after this transmittal. Therefore, his traversal was untimely. See La. R.S. 13:713(C)(3).

3.   Melancon has failed to comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4(A)(5) in that his appellant brief does not contain, under appropriate heading, the assignments of alleged errors. However, the appellant brief does list an issue presented for review, contentions, and citations to the authority upon which Melancon relies. Furthermore, “[i]t is well-settled that pro se litigants are accorded greater leeway in the interpretation of their pleadings.” Kling v. Hebert, 2023-00257 (La. 1/26/24), 378 So.3d 54, 59 n.7 (citing State ex rel. Johnson v. Maggio, 440 So.2d 1336, 1337 (La. 1983) (per curiam) (a pro se petitioner “is not to be denied access to the courts for review of his case on the merits by the overzealous application of form and pleading requirements or hyper-technical interpretation of court rules”). Therefore, we will consider the contentions set forth in Melancon's brief.

FIELDS, J.

Edwards, J. Concurs