Harold Joe Black VS Lieutenant Kevin Jordan, Warden Timothy Wilkinson and Linda Ramsey
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NQJ DESIGNTED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0251 HAROLD JOE BLACK VERSUS LIEUTENANT KEVIN JORDAN WARDEN TIMOTHY WILKINSON and LINDA RAMSEY Judgment Rendered SEP 10 2010 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 575 008 Honorable R Michael Caldwell Judge Presiding Harold Joe Black Winn Correction Center PlaintiffAppellant In Proper Person Homer Louisiana Jonathan R Vining Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellee James M LeBlanc BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ McCLENDON 7 Harold Joe Black an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Department appeals the trial court judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review We affirm Plaintiff was charged with violating Prison Disciplinary Rule 3 Defiance He was subsequently found guilty by the Disciplinary Board and sentenced to a custody change and loss of canteen privileges After exhausting his administrative remedy by appealing the Disciplinary Board decision plaintiff s filed a Petition for Judicial Review alleging that the rule violation was clearly unwarranted In response thereto the Department filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action asserting that plaintiff suffered no significant deprivation of his rights as the only penalties received by plaintiff were ten days of isolation and loss of store privileges After considering the record and applicable law the commissioner recommended that there be judgment in favor of the defendants granting the exception of no cause of action and dismissing plaintiff suit with prejudice s Thereafter following its de novo review of the record the trial court adopted the s commissioner recommendation and dismissed plaintiff action s Plaintiff appealed Judicial review of administrative decisions is governed by LSAR S 9 1177A 15 which provides The court may reverse or modify the decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings inferences conclusions or decisions are a In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions b In excess of the statutory authority of the agency c Made upon unlawful procedure d Affected by other error of law e Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion 2 f Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable probative and substantial evidence on the whole record In the application of the rule where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by firsthand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not due regard shall be given to the agency determination of credibility issues Emphasis s added In its recommendation the commissioner initially noted that the penalty in this matter did not involve a forfeiture of good time or constitute an atypical deprivation of a substantial right of the plaintiff under LSAR 15 S 1177A 9 The commissioner stating that the statute authorizes a court to intervene in the decision of the Department only if substantial rights have been violated concluded that plaintiff has no constitutional or substantial right to any particular housing classification job classification or recreational hobby craft See Sandin v Conner 515 U 472 115 S 2293 132 L 418 1995 Meachum S Ct 2d Ed v Fano 427 U 215 96 S 2532 49 L 451 1976 S Ct 2d Ed After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court Accordingly we affirm the trial court judgment in accordance with the Uniform Rules of the Louisiana s Courts of Appeal Rule 216 4 5 6 and 7 All costs of this appeal 2 2A are assessed against plaintiff Harold Joe Black AFFIRMED E
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.
