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”), appeals a judgment of the district court that dismissed his petition for judicial review without prejudice because it was not filed in the proper mode and venue. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 11, 2023, Mr. Allen sought judicial review of DPSC's denial of his claims in ARP No. EHCC-2023-368 (“ARP”) in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in accordance with La. R.S. 15:1171, et seq.¹ In his ARP, Mr. Allen complained that on February 6, 2023, at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (“Hunt”), Assistant Warden Walter Jarrell, Assistant Warden Donald Johnson, and a doctor conspired to keep him at Hunt's infirmary despite another doctor's recommendation that he be sent to an outside hospital for medical treatment. Mr. Allen alleged that the Hunt staff was retaliating against him because he filed a lawsuit for another offender against Assistant Warden Johnson and his wife and because he also filed administrative review procedures against “rank” at Hunt. Mr. Allen sought several items of relief in his ARP, including: an investigation of the matter and charges of malfeasance in office issued against the assistant wardens; the assistant wardens being relieved of their duties; an “unspecified amount in damages for being retaliated against and denied medical treatment;” and an order prohibiting staff from harassing him or retaliating against him for filing his claim. In Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review, he sought the original relief requested in his ARP, and he also sought to stop the defendants from retaliating against him and denying his access to the courts by unlawfully rejecting his ARPs.

DPSC answered Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review, denying his allegations and submitting the ARP for filing into the record. In its first step response in the ARP, DPSC denied Mr. Allen's claims, stating that it conducted a full investigation into Mr. Allen's ARP complaint and determined that he failed to prove any allegations of inappropriate conduct by Hunt staff towards him. Mr. Allen was not satisfied with the first step response and wished to proceed to step two. In the second step response, the Secretary denied Mr. Allen's request for relief because Mr. Allen failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his allegations.

The Commissioner issued her screening report pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1178 and 15:1184-88, wherein she stated that Mr. Allen requested monetary damages in his ARP grievance. She noted that pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1184(F), in pertinent part, “The exclusive venue for delictual actions for injury or damages shall be the parish where the prison is situated to which the prisoner was assigned when the cause of action arose.” The Commissioner then noted that any claim for damages must be filed as an ordinary suit pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 851-893, not as an appeal for judicial review. According to the Commissioner, Mr. Allen should have filed his claim in Iberville Parish, where Hunt is located. The Commissioner recommended that the district court dismiss Mr. Allen's petition without prejudice because the petition was not filed in the proper mode for trial or the proper venue.

In response, Mr. Allen filed a “Petitioner's Amended Petition for Judicial Review,” wherein he requested that any part of the petition dealing with monetary damages be deleted and that the amended petition be served on DPSC. Mr. Allen then filed a traverse to the Commissioner's screening report wherein he referred to the amended petition for judicial review. He also referred to a different ARP he had filed where he sought monetary damages arising from an alleged incident where the Commissioner did not recommend the dismissal based on the request for monetary damages.

On January 30, 2024, the district court signed a judgment dismissing Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review without prejudice at Mr. Allen's costs because it was filed in an improper mode for trial and in an improper venue, in accord with the Commissioner's recommendation. Mr. Allen appeals from the judgment.

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. See Sanders v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2023-0098 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/15/23), 376 So.3d 139, 142; LAC 22:I:325(D)(1). Pursuant to DPSC's rules and procedures, offenders must exhaust a two-step ARP before they can proceed with a suit in state court. See La. R.S. 15:1176.

Under the provisions of CARP, an offender aggrieved by an adverse decision by DPSC, excluding decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages, rendered pursuant to the prescribed administrative remedies may seek judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. La. R.S. 15:1177(A). On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court. Jerome v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2024-0536 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/18/25), 406 So.3d 617, 621. Its review is confined to the record and limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy request filed at the agency level. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5).

The district court may affirm the decision of the agency, remand the case for further proceedings, or order that additional evidence be taken. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(8). Pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9), a reviewing court may reverse or modify DPSC's decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative decisions or findings are: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other error of law; (e) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion; or (f) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

An aggrieved party may appeal a final judgment of the district court to the appropriate appellate court. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(10). On appeal of the district court's judgment, the appellate court reviews the administrative record de novo under the criteria of La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9). Jerome, 406 So.3d at 621.

On appeal, Mr. Allen essentially contends that the district court erred in adopting the Commissioner's recommendation and dismissing his petition without prejudice.² Mr. Allen asserts that the district court erred in its judgment because he filed an amended petition for judicial review to withdraw his claim for monetary damages, thereby “cur[ing] any defects.” As to the merits of his underlying claim, he does not point to anything specific in the record to support the assertions in his ARP.

After a de novo review, we agree in part with Mr. Allen's contention that the district court erred in adopting the Commissioner's report. The district court was correct in its finding that Mr. Allen was required to file his claim for monetary damages as an ordinary suit in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court where Hunt is located and in dismissing that portion of his claim. Delictual actions for injury or damages must be filed separately as original civil actions. La. R.S. 15:1177(C); Jerome, 406 So.3d at 621 n.2.³ The exclusive venue for delictual claims for injury or damages is the parish where the prison is situated to which the inmate was assigned when the cause of action arose. La. R.S. 15:1184(F). When an inmate files such a suit in an improper venue, the district court may raise the exception of improper venue on its own motion and transfer the suit to a court of proper venue or dismiss the suit. La. R.S. 15:1184(B).

However, the district court should not have dismissed the remainder of Mr. Allen's appeal. See Jerome, 406 So.3d at 621. The district court should have maintained and considered Mr. Allen's remaining non-delictual claims regarding whether the Hunt staff denied him a visit to an outside hospital for necessary medical treatment in retaliation for Mr. Allen's filing ARPs against “rank” at Hunt. See Jerome, 406 So.3d at 621; Pooler v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2023-0083 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/15/23), 2023 WL 6014536, *4. Mr. Allen filed a motion to amend his petition to remove his delictual claims, but the district court did not act on the motion. Mr. Allen is entitled to judicial review of his non-delictual claims in accordance with the provisions of La. R.S. 15:1177.

Therefore, Mr. Allen's delictual claim for damages was properly dismissed because it was filed in the improper mode for trial and in an improper venue, but the district court erred in dismissing Mr. Allen's remaining non-delictual claims.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the January 30, 2024 judgment is affirmed to the extent it dismisses Derrick Jerome Allen's delictual claims for monetary relief. The dismissal of the remaining non-delictual claims in Derrick Jerome Allen's petition for judicial review is reversed, and the matter is remanded for judicial review. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $150.00 are assessed to Derrick Jerome Allen and in the amount of $150.00 to Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.⁴

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.

I agree with the majority's conclusion that appellant's delictual claim was properly dismissed by the district court, and the district court erred in dismissing appellant's remaining non-delictual claims. Further, I agree that the proper remedy is to remand the matter to the district court to consider the merits of the remaining non-delictual claims as was done in Pooler v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2003-0083 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/15/23), 2023 WL 6014536, *4. I acknowledge that in Jerome v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2024-0536 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/18/25), 406 So.3d 617, 621, this court elected to address the merits of the claims for the first time on appeal rather than remanding said claims. However, I find the procedure utilized by the majority herein and as set forth in Pooler to be the more appropriate approach.

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. Campbell v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2023-1097 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/19/24), 389 So.3d 860, 863 n.3, writ denied, 2024-00649 (La. 9/17/24), 392 So.3d 893. 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); Campbell, 389 So.3d at 863 n.3.

2.   On appeal, Mr. Allen also contends that the Nineteenth Judicial District Court commissioners are unconstitutional. Mr. Allen has raised this issue for the first time on appeal. The constitutionality of a statute must first be questioned in the district court and must be specifically pled. Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co. Inc., 94-1238 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 859, 864-65; Rochon v. Young, 2008-1349 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/13/09), 6 So.3d 890, 892, writ denied, 2009-0745 (La. 1/29/10), 25 So.3d 824. Therefore, we do not consider Mr. Allen's assignment of error raising this issue.

3.   We note that Mr. Allen was the appellant in Jerome, 406 So.3d at 619, although the plaintiff's name in the caption was set forth as “Derrick Jerome.”

4.   Although Mr. Allen filed his petition for judicial review in forma pauperis, because he was partially unsuccessful in obtaining the relief sought, costs may be assessed against him. See Jerome, 406 So.3d at 622 n.3.

STROMBERG, J.

McClendon, C.J. Agrees and Assigns additional reasons.