Louis Stemley VS Kenneth Overmyer, Jim Rogers, C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center and Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 CA 1866 LOUIS STEMLEY VERSUS KENNETH OVERMYER JIM ROGERS C PAUL PHELPS CORRECTIONAL CENTER DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered November r 2 2007 the Appealed from Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East J Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 510 168 Honorable Janice Clark Louis Judge In Stemley Proper Person Kinder LA Plaintiff Rutledge Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Debra A Defendant Appellant Appellee Department of Public Corrections Safety La BEFORE CARTER C J PETTIGREW AND WELCH n WELCH J The plaintiff appellant Louis Stemley Louisiana an inmate in the Department of Public Safety and Corrections formerly confined Louisiana the C to appeals Paul court of action a cause February Rule violating after before the hearing days 2 4 a Disciplinary Board that the finding of guilt and that the sentence therefore district the court was to sentenced have his and sugar from the kitchen and 14 10 to cover 2003 the to the After plaintiff was 8 days Isolation CTS cost of the sugar a The Disciplinary Board to the warden contending excessive commenced these to duty performed was disciplinary report for of sugar in his footlocker February 65 to a arbitrary and capricious due imposed plaintiff seeking was of the on issued taking large quantity and Restitution of Duty was after he admitted theft plaintiff appealed the decision extra plaintiff guilty of violating the rule and Extra failing and 5 the 2003 officials discovered prison found 11 22 2003 79 for We affirm the judgment in accordance with Uniform Court of Appeal Rules 2 16 2 A On for dismissing his petition judicial review of Disciplinary Board Appeal Number PCC state and Department Center1 in DeQuincey Correctional Phelps judgment of the district a the of the custody to insufficient evidence The warden denied his appeal and proceedings for judicial review in the sentence have the vacated to be given days disciplinary report off for the removed from his records In objection the response of the basis no cause that his deprivation or Department filed of action seeking nor a neither substantial loss deprived the plaintiff of any constitutional right Louis Stemley is cunently peremptory exception raIsmg the the dismissal of the complaint involved hardship a an on atypical substantial right indicating or plaintiffs petition that the Department had had acted negligently confined to the Allen Conectional Center in Kinder Louisiana 2 On La R S July 20 2004 the commissioner issued 15 1177 A Department 9 and since the prejudiced plaintiffs recommendation substantial rights have been violated in this penalties imposed matter atypical deprivation of a substantial right of the plaintiff 515 US 472 486 87 115 S Ct 2293 commissioner recommended that the state of action a cause After considering the district court action and the the Clause does not or citing impact 1976 limitation or in the Meachum L Ed 2d 451 suit with judgment constitute Sandin see v an Conner the 1995 suit be dismissed for its failure substantial s to right violation proceedings August on 31 2004 recommendation and rendered the objection After prejudice find we not 132 L Ed 2d 418 exception raising proceedings on the Fano v no error of the district a of of no cause thorough review in the commissioner 427 U S underlying privileges our and 215 224 rights penal system a a 115 S Ct at 96 S Ct 2532 brings about the s T he Due Process court Sandin 515 U S at 478 prisoner Lawful incarceration of many considerations a did or protect every change in the conditions of confinement having substantial adverse 2297 s plaintiff s of the entire record of these recommendation raise commissioner the defendant dismissing to the entire record of the adopted judgment sustaining 2301 02 plaintiff s i e its failure noting that the district court to intervene in the only authorizes decision if the s a 2538 49 necessary withdrawal retraction Sandin 515 U S justified by at 485 the 115 S Ct at 2301 In this days of extra sugar stolen to the not case the imposition of the penalties of duty and of restitution in the by the plaintiff were not amount atypical or a ten days isolation of eight 65 to cover the significant hardship cost of the in relation ordinary incidents of prison life Thus the imposition of these penalties did violate the plaintiff s constitutional liberty interest that would entitle him rights and did not afford him procedural protections to 3 a protected Sandin 515 US at 487 App 18t Cir 115 S Ct at 2302 2 14 03 App 18t App 18t Cir Accordingly also Parker 845 So 2d 445 Cir 6 23 00 3 4 La see 762 So 2d 734 6 23 00 we 446 738 739 August 31 Leblanc 2002 0399 p 2 La v Cain Davies v Giles 762 So 2d 1239 affirm the v costs of this appeal are assessed AFFIRMED 4 to pp 4 7 La Stalder 2000 0101 pp 1241 2004 judgment accordance with Uniform Court of Appeal Rules 2 16 2 A 2 All 99 1201 the plaintiff of the district court in 4 and 5 appellant Louis Stemley
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.
