JOSEPH V. FOSTER, JR. VS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 0159 JOSEPH V FOSTER JR VERSUS LA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS DATE OF JUDGMENT December 28 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 523 459 DIV E 23 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA THE HONORABLE WILLIAM A MORVANT JUDGE Joseph V Foster Jr Plaintiff Appellant Angola Louisiana Pro Se L Bruce Dodd Counsel for Defendant Baton Rouge Louisiana La Appellee Dept of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE Disposition 16 2 A 1 2 KUHN GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM COURT OF APPEAL RULE 2 4 5 and 6 Kuhn J Plaintiff Joseph of Public Department Foster V Jr imnate in the an and Corrections Safety custody DPSC appeals judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review of Following he imprisoned an incident Rule No board petition a Foster for defiance Penitentiary where court remedy s decision to extra days 8 duty otherwise charge and COlmnissioner screened Foster substantial pursuant that the entitled penalty right and is Apparently to any not the relief concluding did not constitute to review disciplinary by this violation of appealed the Thereafter he District Court for of the sentence 15 11 78 and 15 1188 the The COlmnissioner reconllnended that Revised Statutes 15 1177 at issue subject petition a Foster appeal challenging the validity that would invoke the right violation to Louisiana s of the did not receive sufficient notice of In accordance with Louisiana Revised Statutes not I 3 was prison disciplinary judicial review with the Nineteenth Judicial the amended was The but the Warden denied his Rouge urging that he Foster violation of Rule No a the Parish of East Baton I administrative guilty of aggravated disobedience and sentenced him 5 disciplinary the Louisiana State and Procedures for Adult Imnates ultimately found board at charged with was Disciplinary Rules Foster an district a We affirm action filed of the Louisiana an Comi board amended the that Foster failed a The COlmnissioner found atypical deprivation Sandin raise district court jurisdiction of the A9 to v Conner charge against of a substantial 515 U S 472 Foster after recelvmg a recOlmnendation from the assistant warden but the administrative record does not disclose when tIns occurred or when that information was cOlmmmicated to Foster 2 132 L Ed 2d 418 115 S Ct 2293 district court petition for After rights thorough review s reasons at his judicial review with prejudice a November 15 2005 a judge adopted the Commissioner his due process contending In 1995 judgment and dismissed Foster cost F oster has of the record L Ed 2d 451 the T he Due Process Clause does not comi 1976 considerations Fan 0 v 427 U S and privileges underlying our 215 brings rights penal system 224 96 S Ct substantial a Conner 515 U S at 478 v Lawful incarceration of many limitation Sandin prisoner Meachum quoting 2297 or on appealed agree with the determinations of we protect every change in the conditions of confinement having impact s have been violated the COlmnissioner and of the district adverse the 115 S Ct at 2532 2538 49 about the necessary withdrawal a justified by the retraction Sandin v Conner 515 U S at 485 115 S Ct at 2301 In the instant not atypical or a Thus the life rights case the significant hardship imposition procedural protections 2302 of this and did not afford him see also Parker 445 446 Giles 734 738 39 Davies v v Cain v of 8 imposition of a penalty a in relation penalty Conner v Leblanc 02 0399 La 99 1201 pp 4 7 00 0101 1239 3 the ordinary of extra La La duty was incidents of prison did not violate Foster protected liberty Sandin Stalder to days constitutional s interest that would entitle him 515 U S App App App at 487 1st Cir to 115 S Ct at 03 845 So 2d 1st Cir 6 23 00 762 So 2d 1st Cir 6 23 00 762 So 2d 14 2 Accordingly Uniform Court of appeal are we affirm the district Appeal assessed to Rule 2 16 1 2A court 2 s 4 plaintiff appellant Joseph V AFFIRMED 4 judgment 5 and 6 Foster Jr in accordance with The costs of this
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
