Charles N. Simon, Jr. VS Richard L. Stalder

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 0930 1 J I CHARLES N SIMON JR rrJ1 VERSUS c RICHARD L STALDER SECRETARY LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS J fte On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 555 121 Division Honorable Wilson Fields 0 8 Judge Presiding Charles N Simon Jr Plaintiff Kinder LA In William Kline Baton Rouge Attorney LA BEFORE Appellant Proper Person for Defendant Appellee Richard L Stalder Secretary Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections PARRO McCLENDON AND WELCH JJ Judgment rendered October 31 2008 PARRO J Charles N Public Simon Jr an inmate in the Safety and Corrections DPSe dismissing his petition for custody of the Louisiana Department of appeals at Allen Correctional Institute in accordance with judgment and render this opinion judgment We affirm the emergency writ of habeas corpus an a and Rule 2 16 2 5 6 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Simon filed this claim for emergency habeas relief in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court LSA 5 R 15 4 571 unconstitutional therefore he LSA 5 R filing suit nor was 15 1178 and 1188 twenty years Simon at hard labor 15 571 4 B good time credit 3 was to a DPSC had 1 Act 138 1991 La every infractions plea agreement and repealed Acts No thirty days Stalder 06 1120 re 138 9 App 2 See 1995 La Acts screening requirements of September 1992 he 1 the the was good In December 1993 3 980 was 2 1 It provided time law in Simon time credit for certain violations a maximum improper of 30 forfeiture of No 980 9 earn thirty days of 1 2 good Simon days time alleged to his numerous 1 814 good to those sentenced after its effective date 965 So 2d 886 887 to opted which allowed DPSC to sanction limited to the amount of that an inmate could applied only 1st Or 6 8 07 sentenced Louisiana Revised Statute applied the amended forfeiture provisions See LSA R S 15 571 3 3 to the enacted with amendments LSA R S 15 571 14 effective January 1 served and La exhaust his administrative days of good during the month in contracts and to in lieu of incentive wages resulting an plea agreement That agreement included Before this amendment forfeiture that since 1995 in amended in 1995 by Act credit the inmate had earned disciplinary subject alleged that inmates with the forfeiture of up to 180 of its rules constituted He further claimed that because he required was not his suit pursuant effect when he entered into the double credit time time credit in accordance with Act 138 eligibility for good earn good to immediate release entitled was of accumulation post facto law and impairment of the obligation of ex remedies before his his to seeking habeas corpus relief he was to claiming that DPSC s application of the 1995 amendment of 19th JDC days of 1992 See time credit for See Owens v accumulated good time credit been He claimed that had these unconstitutional imposed he would already have been released from custody to his application of the amended statute prison to him applied credit to consequences of law disadvantaged him by time the altering already completed and changing the quantum of his crime a time credit in lieu of post facto law because the removal of good later enacted the plea He further claimed that as impairing the obligation of contracts it was also an ex pursuant Simon claimed the sentence was a breach of his agreement and his selection of the option of receiving double good incentive wages thus not penalties punishment Despite Simon his commissioner s assertion that his claims determined that because that had were they petition assigned were based the to on was not the commissioner App 1st Cir 7 3 02 of Pub writ denied rehearing Bd 825 SO 2d 1245 1251 Safety and Corr of Parole 00 1912 02 2613 03 2093 La La 1 9 04 La 1st Cir App en for judiciai applicable was review to Simon s dismissed for failure to state matter and this 4 a cause signed a to Louisiana Deo t v 843 SO 2d 413 Ferrinqton petition alleged v 414 in on Louisiana 457 58 The an error in time filing a petition examining the facts and the law recommended that his exhaust administrative remedies judgment who statute a petition of action for habeas relief and for lack of be subject On October conformity with that recommendation appeal followed The office of commissioner of the 19th JDC disposition s After the commissioner jurisdiction due to his failure 22 2007 the district court Bernard 886 SO 2d 455 6 25 04 825 SO 2d at 1255 claims 4 review a Ward 00 2842 v to exhaust administrative remedies before required Madison bane 862 So 2d 975 commissioner further concluded that because Simon computation he for See Madison 1st Cir 9 20 02 App screening by his claims did not meet this court s criteria for classification as a true writ of habeas corpus La to pre alleged unconstitutionality of been declared unconstitutional never subject of criminal and civil commissioner accept reject s written or findings modify them was created proceedings arising by LSA R S and recommendations are submitted to LSA R S 13 713 CS 3 13 711 to hear and recommend out of the incarceration of state a district court prisoners judge who The may We have examined the record and agree with the well written facts and law set out in the commissioner district court as its reasons conclusions of law in that error in the district court all costs of this appeal s a s screening report which copy of which is attached The was to Simon AFFIRMED 4 we affirm that adopted by the findings of fact and report adequately explain the judgment and judgment Accordingly analysis of the we find no judgment and legal assess 11 iU NUMBER 555 CHARLES N SIMON JR SECTION 8 121 JUDICIAL DlSTRlcr COURT 19th VERSUS PARISH OF EAST BATONIR05lED V STATE OF LOUISIANA LA DEPT OF PUBUC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS m 0 5 007 COMMISSIONER S SCRETI NtNG REPORT Corrections filed this suit an identified as a jurisdiction custody of the Department claim for disciplinary appeal Court to have in the an inmate The Petitioner or ARP grievance assumptions are true that assertion presumes habeas claim asserts the unconstitutionality sentenced prior that when an never appeal of 15 1171 et seq for this habeas a complaint and that a petition for 1178 and R S 15 1188 While these fact not found herein and that is that the involving illegality of custody Here the Petitioner as it applies to one challenges his custody based on the triggering unconstitutionality of a statute that has event for a habeas corpus claim i e of a statute declared to be unconstitutional has not occurred and the inmate criteria for classification as a true Based on the facts I as habeas held the amendment However the First Circuit noted that it has consistently inmate does not meet the complaint required by R S of the 1995 amendment of R S 15 5714 been declared unconstitutional the application alleged Ifind that this writ of habeas corpus petition does not present the matter may be dismissed under the Court s the s claim 2 an actual habeas stated hereinafter and further that even if the CARP and PLRA do which I do not suggest cause one a to R S 15 subject to screening pursuant to as as an He argues that an inmate overdue for release is not required to corpus is not a true Safety and emergency habeas relief rather than exhaust administrative remedies before filing petition presents of Public not apply authority to find no of action stated pursuant to Art 927 C C P For reasons stated below Isuggest dismissal of this suit for failure to state a cause of action for habeas relief and lack of subject matter for failure to exhaust administrative remedies This report is issued pursuant consideration and final to screening requirements for the Court s de novo adjudication without service on the Defendant ANALYSIS OF THE FAcrS AND LAW Ferrington v Louisiana Ed of Parole 886 S02d 455 1st Cir 2004 stating that CARP is currently the exclusive remedy by whicH an offender may challenge the DPSC s time computations relative to good time even where an inmate incorrectly labels his claim a writ ofhabeas corpus LSA R S 15 U71 B Madison v Ward 825 So2d at 125H252 2 See Bernard v Louisiana of Public Safety and Corrections LaApp 1St Cir g 20 02 843 Department S02d 413 414 on rehearing writ denied La l g 04 862 S02d 975 See Ferrington v Louisiana Ed of Parole 886 S02d 455 32 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 1 I 11101 34001 The Petitioner states that he 1992 4 was sentenced to apparent from the date that the Petitioner It is earned all and forfeited pone However the Petitioner of the over good time the past 15 years has 2008 That good time release in credits for which he was 2001 had he eligible from 1992 according to his records forfeited significant not deny the credits for numerous prison rule violations While the Petitioner does rule violations he asserts that the Department had prohibition to no because of the authority ex post facto in anyone month for order the forfeiture of more than 30 days of good time rule violation when in fact the penitentiary in September Petitioner would have been due for good time release in record shows that the was in the has not served his full sentence and he is due for according to his record attached to his petition good time 20 years at times more than 30 days in forfeited pursuant to the 1995 amendment authority of the Department one or for one rule violation increased 4 571 The 1995 amendment to R S 15 to forfeit up to 180 month a days of good time earned for disciplinary violations The forfeiture Department through the has the appeal promulgated disciplinary rules that allow administration and to this Court if timely filed and unknown whether the Petitioner appealed any previous suit in 2005 alSo involved a request or to restore sizeable It is all of his a good time forfeited for that resulted in misconducts almost 15 years ago but he has waited The forfeitures which he now contests began in 1992 a pursued all of the hundreds of prior violations but disciplinary violations based on an alleged impulse disorder until he accumulated of each such good time loss that he now asserts makes him overdue for thus this habeas action release EX POST FACTO CLAIM His an ex complaint is that the application of the 1995 increased release post facto law and thus he is entitled to immediate pleadings the Court has than 10 years the past 15 years in more According to the attachments this Petitioner has one of the worst disciplinary records that he submitted with his seen good time forfeiture statute is almost 600 disciplinary rule violations on record over 6 As stated this snit is not this Petitioner s prior prison disciplinary decisions between 1995 first habeas complaint seeking and the present 7 to overturn By this application the the Pettion p 1 See Docket 518 212 dismissed by the 19th Judicial District Court previously 6 See DOC 16 page Conduct Report attached to the Petitioner s Emergency Application for Habeas relief as Exh B 7 See 518 212 wherein the Court previously dismissed a similar complaint filed as a habeas and as a review of an administrative decision that refused to restore all good time lost as a result ofthe Petitioner s 4 o olations In th tsuit the basis for vas relief that the Petitioner has d negative or aggressive He argued therem that he is unable to control his impulsive behavior whichis the cause ofhis present conviction for rape also and thus he should not be held responsible for violating the prison mles oo mle unpulse disorder smce childhood 2 13 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT jj 1616 of prior unidentified Petitioner again seeks to have this Court overturn dozens if not hundreds disciplinary decisions and restore the more than 1 500 illegally forfeited under the 1995 amendment days of good time that he alleges In order to circumvent the statutory law and and separate exhaustion of disciplinary and Department rules that require timely administrative claim However there is or the Petitioner asserts this grievances through the Department s procedures askIng for habeas rellef was II contingency to the lllegallty of the Petitioner good time restored IN other incarceration and that is the Petitioner must first have all of his words for release time previously forfeited is restoredfirst then he will be overdue good if on good time parole However this claim cause filed must be dismissed for as illegal custody of action for habeas relief available in each disciplinary decision restoration of certain individually and or to forfeitures for good time and 2 an inmate may have illegally by the Department failure to timely failure to state exhaust remedies reasons he could not raise previously appellate jurisdiction unless the Petitioner is against the Department overdue for a statute cause completed good time his presumed to be valid Circuit in Ferrington v on being held sua 20 year sentence or no support even for the conclusion that he is good time has been forfeited by authority of until otherwise declared In finding that an inmate allegations Board sponte of action for habeas relief because there is no allegation that release ON the contrary his his incarceration based any B duty of a court to examine subject matter jurisdiction when the issue is not raised by the litigants 9 the Petitioner has and to consider It is the Further there is no a exhaust the issue of whether he is entitled to Without exhaustion this Court is without and all claims 1 two reasons of an unconstitutional statute ofParole unless and until the statute relied upon held that as no cause as here challenging alleged the First of action for habeas relief is stated unconstitutional has previously been held unconstitutional banc opinion in Madison another panel of this claim was not truly a habeas corpus claim Bernard 84 S02d at 414 The Bernard court noted that the statute LSA RS 15 571 5 which the inmate challenged as unconstitutional on its face or as applied to him had never been declared unconstitutional Thus the court concluded that the triggering eventfor a habeas corpus claim i e the application of an statute had not occurred Accordingly the Bernard court held that the inmate s claim did not meet the criteria for classification as a true writ of habeas cOrpUS emp added While noting this court s en court found that the inmate s unconstifUtional 10 B See R S 15 U71B 9 Robinson v Parole 10 Ferrington v Probation Division 819 S02d 1021 Louisiana Bd of Parole 886 S02d 455 457 58 1 eir 2001 LaApp y 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 1 @ 1024 Cir 2004 3 4002 11161634003 The Petitioner challenges the unidentified Department s forfeiture of good time for Disciplinary Rule violations primarily because at the time could Department by no more than 30 days of good time in a single month him good double it His eligibility in In double a liberty Interest him to be eligible time to earn 30 constitutions a every 30 In was not following as more or to inquiry the penalty narrower whether the post crime law v adopting it once again is to encourage discipline punishment for the a increases the retrospective guaranteed at all law 1 punishment of a defense as an ex facto law post law that alters a defendant s rather than alters the definition of criminal conduct 14 In 2001 our or ex limiting increases Supreme Court returned to the in accordance with the of rape was holding by the U S Supreme only issue with regard to the instant increasing aj1d sentence the actual It can be forfeited as entirely dependent on the conduct While long as penalty conduct of prisoners and whose purpose and order within the prison cannot be said case the punishable only the prospective crime of rape in this time of the conviction good time earning and or to increase the eligibility is guaranteed as of the maintaining of good time is not due process is afforded in the process It is of the inmate while in uSee R S 15 5714 prior to 1995 amendment u Collins 1 Youngblood 497 U S 37 110 S Ct 2715 779 S02d 735 La 2001 111 prison Disciplinary rules L Ed 2d 30 See also State ex are designed reI Olivieri v State rd State s of additional loss of good time for prospective rule violations increases the R S 15 571 4 that affects 3 2 To be prohibited standard the prevailing by which the Petitioner s original crime 4 prison when it of an ex post facto law is whether the 1995 amendment to R S 15 571 4 possibility actually earn Youngblood Therefore under the question in post facto law disadvantaged the accused by which the crime is punishable Court in Collins not to Over the years the Courts had broadened the definition of disadvantage standard an ex deprives the defendant 3 than simply post facto to include any post crime law that the days in custody criminal when committed available at the time of the commission of the crime situation to his good time options only allow determining what constitutes an ex post facto crime after the commission of the crime under the Constitution it must be guaranteeing Both the United States and Louisiana the United States Supreme Court classified the for which he interprets as dependant upon his continued good behavior prohibit ex post facto laws makes conduct criminal that Thereafter in 1993 the Petitioner However such double primarily an ex post facto claim rules U Department days of good time for actual earning of such is This is the good time plea of guilty to only penalize an inmate who violated prison forcible rape in 1992 the opted for ofhis certain o110 S Ct ex reI Olivieri v State 779 S02d 735 744 La 2001 see also Collins v Youngblood 497 U S 37 2715 111 L Ed 2d 30 4 3S 19111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 1116164004 at best and the speculative time an nd good behavior in discipline to encourage inmate on post ex facto clause notice since 1995 that if he committed certain rule subject to forfeit up to 180 days rather than the previously he was days AS and not long as the forfeiture Is applied to prospective conduct only it does not violate any of the earned good time in which the Petitioner has constitutional safeguards cited by the Petitioner to the contrary disadvantaged vested interest especially the ex post facto clause The Olivieri and all subscribe to the pre Collins are a line of reasoning the Supreme Courts later rejected The Petitioner s argument that his plea does not warrant relief herein The Petitioner asserts was part of his plea bargain has been in prison even without violating the might lose for disciplinary violations retroactively applied to the prior outdated amount of good prison authorized 30 cases The possibility of loss of good time is to the Legislature clearly has the authority change In this instance the Petitioner was vioaltions in prison was contingent by his good time eligibility likewise admission is good time own In fact he has apparently earned double Thus based on this fact alone there is assuming arguendo that this on breach ofhis no eligible as he good time while he plea agreement claim could otherwise merit any relief which is not suggested 6 herein The fact that considerably an inmate might have possibility of forfeiture thereof for there is no constitutional right to the core the right to be eligible for good time for which he is sentence right to At within the discretion of the by the legislature or for rape in this instance Thus the The amount of S 15 5713 However the amount disciplinary violations is guaranteed either by statute good time applied only to prospective credits legislatively authorized legislature Neither the earning nor the DOC rule And neither does the of forfeiture of good time for misconduct increase the imposed if good time 7 The time Petitioner upon conviction has only good maximum limits set eligibility differs maintain all cause even eligible is set by the legislature in R Department subject to the forfeiture of good time is of good time if authorized for such by the of good time that may be forfeited for possibility expectation from whether the inmate has an inalienable available without the good time an argument penalty the 2o year that the increased forfeiture of misconduct is somehow additional punishment for the Petitioner s original crime of rape is without any basis in the law The Petitioner either misstates v State 779 S02d 735 La 2001 violation must be raised in the context of a post conviction application filed in the court Any alleged plea ofconviction pursuant to Art 924 not in this Court in a civil complaint against the Department State ex rei Olivieri 7 Howard v La Bd of Probation and Parole 589 S02d 534 536 1 wr Cir Greenholtz v Inmates of Nebraska Penal and denied 590 S02d 87 La 1991 Correctional Complex 99 S Ct 2100 1979 McGhee v Belisle 501 F Supp ED La 189 1980 5 0 3 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT r l11616340 0 of his cites cites law that has been overruled by Collins and Olivieri the holding in the ex facto prevailing jurisprudimce on the subject of post some or case laws has been arbitrarily Further the Petitioner s argument that the Department 4 571 as amended is not supported R S 15 an issue that could procedures not for prison Department s authority to impose greater penalties merely exercising a legislatively granted prerogative Further the Petitioner does not even allege that he violations that resulted in the loss of good time the the commission of the disadvantage using the sentence in violation of the underlying identical issue as held that the here at all a only does Supreme Court application of a not violate ex post key element of any ex after the rule change not extend the new good time forfeiture facto l5 w it was The California Court he had committed the was used even original crime original sentence by the California simply not a retrospective occurred after the amendment to the Court the Court found case In my opinion Petitioner rule because it only the rule and did a and did part ofthe definition under the old standard of review reasoning in deciding this very issue adversely to the rule 19 not applied to the inmate only because he retrospective application by legal violation under facts almost identical to this new principles because it is applied to imposed because of misconduct that the inmate participated Ipoint this out only because line of reasoning which rule of the full sentence the Court held that it was neither a to note when faced with the in Ramirez And since the sanctions were not part of the original term original sentence nor forfeiture of effectively lengthen his post facto application prisoner and he was a prisoner only because increased rule sanctions were only in proposition that original criminal offense would work to his reasoned that while it was true the amendment to the rule was a not stand for the post facto issue Nonetheless it is significant decision of California misbehavior retrospective California does he cites in that case did post facto law The Supreme Court ruling on the ex than deny writs that the prospective ex is arbitrary of the hundreds of rule to such an extent as to outdated standard rule vioaltions complained of He claims that Ramirez stands for the good time applied after more was innocent cited by the Petitioner Ramirez v case proposition he asserts nothing remedy the legislature did pass the law part of a habeas complaint Nevertheless and it cannot be said that Finally and would more importantly be Court after exhaustion of the administrative only come to this as that increased the by the facts alleged applying s the no ex disadvantaged post facto the Court used sound assertion on the basis that the applied to prison misconduct that not increase the penalty for the underlying crime of conviction 106 S Ct 2266 1986 a denial ofwrits 19705 P 2d 897 Cal S Ct 1985 6 37 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT Tli Therefore Isuggest that even application sound reason to conclude that the after the rule change since the true do not s adoption original and narrower ON the contrary it sentence through by his record misconduct which only to misconduct in prison post facto This is more especially interpretation of what an ex post facto law only affects the even is though they may work to his Petitioner s earning oftime off of that The key to his release is in his good behavior standard there is entirely because the prison sanctions herein complained of must fail argument more narrow of the amendment lengthen the orlglna1sentence that was Imposed disadvantage of the is not retrospective and therefore not ex return to the The Petitioner before the 163 006 he own ability to control his has not done apparently 1 IMPAIfu ENT OF CONTRACTS CLAIM The Petitioner also argues that the obligation application of R S of contracts in that it violates the double the petition has been held Corrections20 not to be whether the a contract at by the option form rate First Circuit in Bancroft v Department it does not refer to a specific will not be amended refer at all purpose ofthe option increased good time option does on to lessen increase the amount the contrary is simply to allow the inmate earning in exchange for an irrevocable waiver not guarantee actual double good time if misconduct warrants alerts the inmate that or good time earnings On the contrary the nor regardless of to which it does subject to forfeiture to become The eligible for of incentive wages The prohibit the forfeiture of such option fonn quoted by the good time may be lost through disciplinary of amount of good time that can be forfeited and does not guarantee that the forfeiture statutes not referred to and all and therefore not subject to breach Also option could be termed a contract impairs the fonn he signed This good time option First the argument is without merit on its face for two reasons quoted in 4 571 as amended 15 actions or other Petitioner means provided by law IN SUM Not only did the legislature authorize the greater good time forfeiture promulgated rules in connection with RS 15 571 4 that notify the prisoners the Department of the additional sanctions they face upon certain rule violations The Petitioner does not contradict this fact in his petition eligIbility either Clearly has no bearirlg on this does not complain that he is plea he would earn bargain the Petitioner s plea complaint and good time ineligible good time Whether or not which allegedly included good time entitles him to 1 habeas relief in this Court He but ratherthat he was guaranteed that by his he is entitled to post conviction relief issue is not before the Court But his conclusion that he was 20635 S02d 738 LaApp no on this guaranteed irrevocable good time is eir 1994 7 3 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 111616 4007 not in accord with the law The law he does he is or not earn it is to subject dependent on him eligibility to earn right appeal the disciplinary board he does good time rights he has to a are Whether prison rules his conduct while in prison Ifhe violates the forfeiture of good time and his due process obtains in the rules and the In this case only guarantees afforded in the notice he hearing upon an alleged violation and the right to ultimately to this decision to the Secretary and Court in each case allege that he took advantage of that right In any or all of the rule not violations he now seeks to have overturned As stated there is does the not increase Olivieri v State the sentence no ex post facto application of law in the penalty for the wherein the Court held that Z case crime as held a were no Petitioner s full term date at not criminal at the time of imposed by the trial Court sentencing was 2011 the increase and even Petitioner is entitled to the restoration of good time for was authorized In this with the forfeitures herein it is 2008 which is three years less than the sentence afforded post facto unless it increases is not retrospective application herein because the Petitioner good time only on misconduct committed after appellate process ex of forfeiture of good time the sentence increased at all Further there is ofR S 15 571 4 It by the Supreme Court s holding in law cannot be criminal that penalty or makes actions commission In the lost underlying application imposed The case complained the of only way the disciplinary violations is through the by the Departments promulgated Disciplinary Rules and Procedures The Petitioner makes no allegation that he raised any of the present issues in either the disciplinary process follpwing each loss regarding its implementation ofR S Thus for any reliefbased his on a or all of these or even 15 good time which is not identified of his due process righn he states no cause of action for habeas application of RS an by date or incident Without facts in support he states or any other 4 571 or breach of contract based 15 He simply makes plea of guilty or the tate option form of his complaint to the Department 4 571 reasons claim of ex post facto in a general unsupported allegation that was no cancelled cause illegally on some in violation of action for any relief from this Court In addition based on the fact that he seeks to have board decisions overturned none a now disciplinary showing that he properly and timely exhausted administrative remedies in connection with each decisions he unidentified prior of which are identified I suggest that this Court could not overturn them in any event without under circumstances not herein numerous that he was unable He does not allege that he alleged seeks to overturn and offers See R S 15 571 3 and R S 15 5714 779 S02d 735 La 2001 see also Collins one or v no to appealed appeal any or each one all of the 46 explanation why he did not or could not Youngblood 110 S Ct 2715 1991 8 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COU lm16 400 Without proper exhaustion and jurisdiction to consider the a timely appeal of each to this Court this Court has no validity of the forfeitures RS 15 5714 is constitutional until held otherwise The Petitioner puts the a valid law cart before the horse is overdue for release when the forfeitures he assails have not been properly overturned and when R S 15 571 4 has not been held unconstitutional appellate presumed by claiming he appealed and Therefore R S 15 1172 requires dismissal or all If the Court agrees either that dismissal is appropriate for any reasons stated herein my formal recommendation follows COMMISSIONER S SCREENING Therefore Ihave carefully reviewed screened the petition Pllrsuant to R S 15 In addition after the pleadings and memorandum submitted and 1172 15 1176 15 1178 and 15 considering the law and jurisprudence appertaining recommend that this petition be dismissed for failure other relief and cOMMENDATIO RFN to state acause 1184 and Art for reasons 927 C C P stated I of action for habeas alternatively for lack of jurisdiction because the Petitioner has failed or any to exhaust administrative remedies first Respectfully submitted this 25th day of September RACHELP 2007 in Baton Rouge Louisiana OR COMMISSIONER SECTION A NINETEENllI JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FILED I HEREBY CERTI FY THAT ON THIS DAY A COPY OF THE WR TTEN REAiONS JUDGMENT ORDERI COMMISSIONER S RECO AMENDATION WAS MAilED BY ME WITH SUFFICiENT POSTAGE AFFIXED TO ALL PARTIES OF EANO SIGNED OON 20 L I nrn 1 THIS4DAY qW e 9 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COU 0

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.