Andrea Hall VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, James Leblanc and Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0875 ANDREA HALL nj VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS ET AL On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 583 Section 26 516 Honorable Kay Bates Judge Presiding Andrea Hall Plaintiff Appellant Angola LA In Proper Person William L Kline Attorney for Baton Rouge LA Defendant Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety Corrections BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ Judgment rendered October 29 2010 PARRO J Andrea Hall an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals a judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court 19th JDC that dismissed his petition for judicial review Based on our review of the record we reverse the judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings DISCUSSION On October 15 2009 Hall filed a petition for judicial review with the 19th JDC alleging that in accordance with the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure CARP established by LSAR 15 etseq he had filed with the prison warden a S 1171 loss of personal property claim concerning 20 family photographs that were missing from his personal property that had been stored within the Camp J storage room at the prison His request for reimbursement of 200 was denied stating In your letter of complaint dated April 8 2009 you state that on March 19 2009 Sergeant Stroud inventoried your property and placed it into storage at Camp J You further state on April 8 2009 Sergeant Lachney returned your personal property to you and your 20 photographs were missing so you refused to sign Institutional records reflect that your property was placed into storage on March 19 2009 Institutional records reflect that your 20 photographs are still in storage because you refused to sign for them No evidence is found to support your allegations Your property claim is denied s Hall petition also alleged that he had asked for further review by the Secretary of DPSC in accordance with CARP procedures but that the time limit for the Secretary s decision had lapsed without any response On November 5 2009 he filed an application for writ of mandamus asking the court to order DPSC to reinventory his personal property as required by prison regulations whenever an inmate has alleged the loss of personal property On that same date he also filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition for judicial review in which he stated that since the filing of his original petition DPSC Secretary James M LeBlanc had filed a response to his personal property claim affirming the denial of that claim A copy of the Secretary denial of his s claim dated August 27 2009 was attached to his amended petition for judicial review 2 Although he also filed an order to be signed by the court to allow the filing of the amended petition the order was not signed Pursuant to the screening provisions of LSA R S 1178 15 and LSA R S 2 A 1184 s 15 Hall petition was assigned to a commissioner at the 19th JDC to be reviewed The commissioner report which was signed on February 8 2010 s recommended that the district court dismiss Hall appeal because o the face of the s n appellate petition Hall admits that this complaint is pending and has not been yet exhausted through the Secretary final administrative level s The commissioner concluded that because Hall had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies his petition for judicial review was premature and the district court had no subject matter jurisdiction Based on this recommendation the district court judge dismissed the petition signing a screening judgment on March 11 2010 It is clear from our review of the record that the commissioner did not consider s Hall amended petition for judicial review which included a copy of the Secretary final s decision The record shows that Hall has exhausted the administrative remedies available to him under CARP and the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider his petition for judicial review Therefore this matter will be remanded to the district court for service of process pursuant to LSAR 15 and for further S 1179 proceedings consistent with LSAR 15 S 1177 A CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons we reverse the judgment of March 11 2010 and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings All costs of this appeal in the amount of 692 are assessed to DPSC 50 REVERSED AND REMANDED 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.
