Robert Kevin McCartney VS Helen Washington, Jackie Johnson, Tommy Garrett, Warden Jerry Goodwin, Ray Hanson, Warden; James Leblanc, Department of Corrections Secretary and Linda Ramsey, Screening Officer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 CA 2093 ROBERT KEVIN McCARTNEY VERSUS HELEN WASHINGTON JACKIE JOHNSON TOMMY GARRETT WARDEN JERRY GOODWIN RAY HANSON WARDEN JAMES LEBLANC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SECRETARY AND LINDA RAMSEY SCREENING OFFICER A Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Case No 578 054 The Honorable William Morvant Judge Presiding Rachel P Morgan Commissioner Robert Kevin McCartney PlaintiffAppellant Pro Se Homer Louisiana William Kline Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for DefendantAppellee Louisiana Department of Corrections BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ GAIDRY J SUMMARY DISPOSITION Robert Kevin McCartney a prisoner in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections the Department appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for mandamus injunction and declaratory judgment seeking review and reversal of disciplinary actions against him injunctive relief and monetary damages against various prison officials arising from their alleged negligence malfeasance non feasance and misfeasance and violation of various enumerated constitutional rights The action was initially referred to a commissioner for review and screening pursuant to La R 15 and La R 15 S 1178 S 1188 The commissioner thoroughly detailed her findings in a report concluding that the petition failed to state a cause of action for mandamus relief and that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies thereby depriving the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction The commissioner recommended that the suit be dismissed without service of process on the defendants Following its de novo review of the record the trial court adopted the s commissioner recommendation and dismissed plaintiffs action Plaintiff appeals contending that the trial court erred in delegating initial review of his claim to the commissioner and in dismissing his petition based upon the s commissioner recommendations We affirm We initially address plaintiff contention that the trial court erred in s allowing the Commissioner to enter a report and finding in this cause After reviewing the nature of plaintiff claim as expressed in his petition s The office of the commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court was created by La R 13 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings S 711 arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners The commissioner written findings s and recommendations are submitted to a district judge who may accept reject or modify them La R 13 S 713 5 C 2 his assignments of error on appeal and the entire record in this matter it is apparent that his contentions relating to the legal propriety of the s commissioner involvement have no merit whatsoever See La R S 117778 and La R 15 15 S 1188 We agree with the commissioner observation that plaintiff various s s claims are set forth in a rambling lengthy petition that includes facts regarding numerous individual disputes with the Department that are not adequately separated or identified and that his petition is perilously close to being if it is not legally frivolous The commissioner report even s went so far as to point out other procedurally viable avenues for relief Finding that the commissioner report and the district court judgment s s adequately explain our decision as to the other claims and assignments of error we affirm the judgment DECREE We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court through this summary disposition in accordance with Rules 2 16 4 5 6 A 2 8 and 10 of the Uniform Rules of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff appellant Robert Kevin McCartney AFFIRMED See also n supra 1 3
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.
