Kenneth Phillips VS James Leblanc, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Warden Goodwin and Tommy Garrett, David Wade Correctional Center
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 CA 2279 KENNETH PHILLIPS VERSUS JAMES LEBLANC SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WARDEN GOODWIN AND TOMMY GARRETT DAVID WADE CORRECTIONAL CENTER Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No 568762 The Honorable R Michael Caldwell Judge Presiding Homer Louisiana PlaintiffAppellant In Proper Person Susan Wall Griffin Counsel for Defendant Appellee Baton Rouge Louisiana James LeBlanc Kenneth Phillips BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ GAIDRY J In this case an inmate appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review with prejudice We affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Kenneth Phillips an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections administrative remedy procedure ARP Department filed number DWCC2008 0765 on June 5 2008 complaining of a statement in the Department Disciplinary s Rules and Procedures for Adult Inmates that advises inmates that a due process hearing or other application of the disciplinary procedures is only required where a loss of good time is involved Phillips claimed that this statement made the disciplinary rule book illegal inadequate and unconstitutional in violation of his constitutional right of due process His ARP was rejected on June 13 2008 on the ground that it involved a disciplinary matter which was not appealable through the ARP process On July 14 2008 Phillips filed a petition for judicial review of the rejection of his ARP In this petition he again alleged that the disciplinary rule book was illegal inadequate and unconstitutional and requested that the court reverse and overturn all sanctions and all penalties and restore all good time Noting that Phillips sought to overturn his prior disciplinary convictions and penalties and that Louisiana Administrative Code Title 22 Part I Section 325 Fprovides that disciplinary matters are not appealable through the ARP the Commissioner recommended that the final administrative decision rejecting Phillips ARP be affirmed and his petition for judicial review be dismissed with prejudice The district court adopted 2 the Commissioner recommendation and dismissed Phillips petition for s judicial review with prejudice This appeal followed DISCUSSION Phillips argues on appeal that the court erred in dismissing his petition for judicial review on the basis that disciplinary matters are not appealable through the ARP because he sought only a declaratory judgment stating that the rule book was unconstitutional not a reversal of a disciplinary decision He argues that his petition for judicial review is void of any indication the appellant was seeking anything other than a declaratory judgment that the Offender Rulebook was unconstitutional However under Paragraph V entitled Relief of Phillips petition for judicial review which states State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you Phillips wrote That all sanctions be reverse and overturn and all penalty including all my goodtime that been imposed under the guidelines of the Disciplinary Rules for Adult Inmates dated December 2000 be restore Clearly as the Commissioner noted Phillips was attempting to circumvent the procedure provided for seeking review of disciplinary matters and instead bring his complaint through the ARP Phillips could certainly have raised his complaint in a disciplinary appeal of any disciplinary action in which he felt his due process was denied The ARP was not the appropriate channel for his complaint and the court did not err in dismissing his petition for judicial review CONCLUSION The judgment of the district court dismissing Kenneth Phillips petition for judicial review with prejudice is affirmed Costs of this appeal are to be bome by Phillips AFFIRMED 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.
