James B. Boston VS Warden Alvin Jones, Warden Gunter and The East Carroll Sheriff's Office
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1778 AMES B BOSTON VERSUS WARDEN ALVIN ONES WARDEN GUNTER AND THE EAST CARROLL PARISH SHERIFF OFFICE S l L On Appeal from the 19th udicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 575 Section 23 422 Honorable William A Morvant Judge Presiding James B Boston Lake Providence Appellant Plaintiff LA In Proper Person William Kline Attorney far Baton Rouge LA Appellee Defendant Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ JUN 0 4 20 0 udgment rendered PARRO J James B 8oston an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his application for a writ of habeas corpus based on a failure to state a cause of action In his application for a writ of habeas corpus the inmate essentially claimed that the Louisiana Board of Parole Board violated his rights during the revocation process and he should have been eligible for a 90 remand rather than a full revocation day See S 9 R 574 LSA 15 G To properly assert his right of review of the Board s decision a parolee is required to file a petition for judicial review in a district court alleging that his right to a revocation hearing was denied or the procedural due process protections specifically afforded by LSA 15 in connection with such a hearing S 9 R 574 were violated See Leach v Louisiana Parole Bd 07 La App ist Cir 6 0848 08 991 So 1120 No such petition for judicial review was filed in this case Instead the 2d parolee chose to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus based on allegations that his continued confinement was unlawful In the absence of a timely petition for filed judicial review containing allegations sufficient to establish a right to appeal pursuant to S 11 R 574 LSA 15 we are unable to consider the propriety of the Board decision or s the validity of the inmate waiver of the final parole revocation hearing s After a thorough review of the record and relevant law and jurisprudence we find that the district court reasons for judgment as set forth in the commissioner s s recommendation adequately explain the decision As the issue involves no more than an application of well rules to a recurring fact situation we affirm the judgment settled in accordance with URCA Rule 2 4 5 6 and 8 Furthermore the A 16 s inmate request for an opportunity to amend his petition to state a cause of action is denied as such an action would be futile under the facts of this case All costs of this appeal are assessed against the inmate appellant AFFIRMED Although the inmate suit was brought in forma pauperis the costs of an unsuccessful appeal may be s assessed against him See Hull v Stalder 00 La App ist Cir 2 808 So 829 833 n 2730 02 15 2d 3 see also LSA art 5188 P C 2
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.
