Kevin Santiago VS James Leblanc, Secretary, Department of Corrections and Risk Review Panel, State of Louisiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 CA 1942 KEVIN SANTIAGO VERSUS JAMES LeBLANC SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RISK REVIEW PANEL STATE OF LOUISIANA Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 565 181 Honorable William Morvant Judge Kevin Santiago Angola LA In Proper Person Plaintiff Appellant William Kline Attorney for Defendant Appellee James LeBlanc Secretary Baton Rouge LA Dept of Corrections Risk Review Panel State of La BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WELCH J Kevin Santiago a prisoner in the custody ofthe Department of Public Safety and Corrections appeals a judgment in which the district court on its own motion granted an exception of no cause of action in favor of defendant James LeBlanc Secretary of the Department of Corrections and the Louisiana Risk Review Panel thereby dismissing this petition for judicial review We affirm BACKGROUND Santiago an inmate housed at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have the district court order the Department of Corrections to provide him with a hearing before the Louisiana Risk Review Panel pursuant to La R 15 S 308 Louisiana Revised Statutes 308 15 provides for the retroactive application of ameliorative penalty provisions to those inmates sentenced prior to 2001 for certain crimes and pursuant to certain sentencing provisions and gives those inmates whose circumstances would be ameliorated by the retroactive application of the penalty provisions the right to apply to the Louisiana Risk Review Panel pursuant to La R 15 S 574 22 Santiago alleged that he had been sentenced under iiand c one of the enumerated provisions in b A 1 529 15 ii La S R La R S 308 15 prior to June 15 2001 and was eligible by virtue of La R 15 to S 308 apply to the Risk Review Panel for a reduced sentence He insisted that La R S 308 15 mandated the retroactive application of the more lenient penalties however the Department denied all persons sentenced under La R 15 S 574 22 the opportunity to go before the Risk Review Panel for consideration In a preliminary screening order the Commissioner found that Santiago failed to state a cause of action for mandamus relief based on a lack of facts regarding his actual eligibility for a hearing stated in the petition The Commissioner noted that Santiago failed to state the basis for the Risk Review 2 s Panel rejection of his request failed to allege that he was eligible for consideration by the panel and failed to allege that he met the statutory eligibility requirements for seeking review before the panel Santiago was given the opportunity to amend his petition to state a cause of action showing that he is eligible for consideration by the panel by stating his current offense and prior felony criminal convictions to show that he is eligible to apply to the Risk Review Panel under La R 15 and the Department S 574 22 srules Santiago was also ordered if his application had been denied by the Risk Review Panel to file a copy of the rejection or refusal along with the amending petition for mandamus to denial confirm that he had applied or attempted to apply for consideration by the panel and that his request was rejected In response Santiago filed an amended writ of mandamus in which he again sought mandamus relief ordering his application for review by the Risk Review Panel be accepted and that he be granted a hearing before the panel as well as a declaratory judgment decreeing that he is entitled to submit an application and receive a hearing from the Risk Review Panel and that the panel rejection denial s of his application was manifestly erroneous and an abuse of discretion In his amended petition Santiago complained that his application had been rejected by the Risk Review Panel without a hearing based on an erroneous finding that he was not eligible for review because he was a habitual fourth offender Santiago insisted that he had been sentenced as a third felony offender not a fourth felony offender and that none of the offenses serving as the basis for his sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute could be deemed violent In support of the allegations of the amended petition Santiago attached the following exhibits 1 an April 28 2006 decision of the Risk Review Panel advising Santiago that the panel reviewed his application and voted to deny the case because Santiago was a habitualfourth offender and advising him that if he 3 found this reason to be incorrect he could resubmit his application 2 a letter dated May 24 2006 from the Risk Review Panel advising Santiago that it was in receipt of his letter disputing the panel reason for denying him a favorable s recommendation but that Santiago was still classified as a fourth offender in his prison master record and that Santiago should address the matter with his classification officer or the prison records department 3 a March 14 2008 decision of the Risk Review Panel returning his application for review on the basis that the application had been previously denied and the panel determined he was ineligible to reapply and 4 certificates indicating Santiago had participated in various prison programs including a sex offender program a religious seminar a peer education program and a fasting program Although Santiago alluded in his amended petition to having attached as an exhibit a copy of the Habitual Bill of Information there is no such exhibit in the record before us The Commissioner concluded that Santiago amended petition failed to s state a cause of action finding that there is no authority for a court to review a rejection rendered by a Risk Review Panel The district court granted the exception of no cause of action on its own motion and dismissed Santiago s petition for review EXCEPTION OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION The peremptory exception of no cause of action is a procedural device to test the legal sufficiency of the petition A plaintiff is required by law to allege specific facts within the four corners of the petition and attachments to the petition to show that he has a cause of action upon which relief and judgment may be granted against the defendant La C art 353 Wells v Flitter 2005 2525 p 4 La P App I Cir 9950 So 679 681 writ denied 2007 0312 La 11 06 27 2d 07 2 966 So 598 In determining whether a petition states a cause of action all well 2d pleaded allegations of fact in the petition must be accepted as true The court must 0 then determine whether the law affords any relief to the claimant if those factual allegations are true Home Distribution Inc v Dollar Amusement Inc 98 1692 p 5 La App 1 Cir 9 754 So 1057 1060 The question on the 99 24 2d exception is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf the petition states any valid cause of action for relief Id Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which never issues in doubtful cases but only when a public official refuses to perform a duty the law clearly states that he must perform Weaver v LeBlanc 2009 0244 p 5 La App I Cir 9 09 14 22 So 1014 1017 In his petition for relief Santiago seeks a writ of mandamus 3d ordering the Risk Review Panel to conduct a hearing on his application for review of his sentence However this court has already held that inmates who are eligible for review by the Risk Review Panel pursuant to La R 15 and La R S 308 S 22 574 15 do not have a cause of action for a writ of mandamus compelling the Risk Review Panel to hold a hearing on risk review applications In so doing this court looked to the history behind La R 15 and La R 15 and S 308 S 574 22 concluded that the only duty the panel must perform is to review an application of an inmate who is entitled by law to review before the Risk Review Panel Thus Santiago does not have a cause of action for mandamus relief compelling the Risk Review Panel to hold a hearing on his risk review application Furthermore we find that Santiago does not have a cause of action for a declaratory judgment decreeing that the Risk Review Panel rejection of his s application was manifestly erroneous or constituted an abuse of discretion Santiago alleged in his petition that the Risk Review Panel rejection of his s application as a fourth offender is manifestly erroneous because he is actually only a third offender as the habitual offender sentencing transcript indicates that the fourth felony offense was not utilized The risk review process however is not the 5 proper procedural vehicle for Santiago to challenge his classification as a fourth offender by the prison authorities The Risk Review Panel clearly has no authority to make classification determinations in deciding whether Santiago is eligible for consideration of a sentence reduction Santiago proper remedy is to challenge his s classification through the prison administrative remedy procedure See Canty v s Day 99 0649 La App 1 Cir 12 756 So 384 Thereafter Santiago 99 28 2d can present his application for sentence review to the Risk Review Panel We find that Santiago petition fails to allege sufficient specific facts to s state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted by the district court Accordingly the district court properly dismissed Santiago spetition on the basis that it failed to state a cause of action CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed costs of this appeal are assessed to petitioner Kevin Santiago AFFIRMED rc All
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.
