Steven Abney VS Monda Heyse, ARP Screening Officer; Tim Wilkinson, Warden and James Leblanc, Secretary of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 CA 1581 STEVEN ABNEY VERSUS MONA HEYSE ARP SCREENING OFFICER TIM WILKINSON WARDEN AND JAMES LEBLANC SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS udgment rendered March 26 2010 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court No 571 866 Honorable Janice Clark Judge STEVEN ABNEY IN PROPER PERSON WINNFIELD LA JONATHAN R VINING ATTORNEY FOR BATON ROUGE LA DEFENDANTAPPELLEE JAMES M LEBLANC SECRETARY OF LOUISIANA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ J PETTIGREW J In this case petitioner an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC sought judicial review of Administrative Remedy Procedure No WNC2008 1015 pursuant to La R 15 Petitioner alleged that in S 1177 three prior disciplinary hearings from May 2006 through March 2007 his good time had been improperly taken without authority by a private prison contractor in violation of the requirements of La R 39 S 1800 5 Citing this court decision in Singleton v s Wilkinson 20060637 La App 1 Cir 2 959 So 969 petitioner asserted that 07 14 2d the actions of the private prison contractor were in violation of constitutional and statutory provisions and that he was entitled to immediate restoration of 305 days of good time credits Petitioner request for administrative relief was rejected by DPSC based on a s finding that the loss of good time was a disciplinary matter to be handled through the disciplinary appeals process Following a de novo review of the record herein including the traversal by petitioner and the Commissioner sReport the trial court maintained the decision by DPSC dismissing petitioner suit with prejudice This appeal followed s After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court herein as petitioner failed to exhaust the disciplinary appellate process prior to initiating his review pursuant to La R 15 S 1177 As noted by the Commissioner below To treat this claim as a viable appeal of the underlying issue of the validity of the good time losses would usurp the legislatively approved Rules of the Department and would make the Disciplinary Rules and Appellate procedures superfluous and irrelevant Accordingly we affirm the trial court judgment s by summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 2 56 7 and 8 Appeal costs are assessed against petitioner Steven Abney 2A 16 AFFIRMED See also Armant v Wilkerson 20082287 p 6 La App 1 Cir 5 13 So 621 624625 09 8 3d hen W private prison contractors impose sentences on inmates at disciplinary hearings there must be oversight and approval by DPSC clearly delineated by the presence of a DPSC official initials on each s disciplinary report that is reviewed in order to satisfy the statutory provisions of La R 39 S 1800 5 Singleton 2006 0637 at 5 959 So at 971 2d Z On appeal petitioner admits that he failed to file disciplinary appeals in the individual cases below 2 citing
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.
