Roman Ford VS Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPI AL FIRST CIRCUIT 0 1 20 CA 0947 ROMAN FORD VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS I Judgment Rendered December 22 2010 APPEALED FROM TIME NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 581 DIVISION D 933 THE HONORABLE JANICE CLARK MORGAN JUDGE Roman Ford In Proper PersonPlaintiffAppellant New Iberia Louisiana Roman Ford William I Kline Attorney for DefendantAppel lee Department of Corrections Baton Rouge L ouisiana BEFORE W McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ IPPLE H McDONALD J In this appeal petitioner Roman Ford seeks to have this court review and reverse a decision rendered in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court dismissing s petitioner complaints without service on the defendant the Department of Corrections After the appeal was lodged this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed which was referred to the panel to which the appeal was assigned In the interest of justice we are maintaining the appeal Roman Ford filed Administrative Remedy Procedure No 20090183 on April 29 2009 concerning a disciplinary action taken against him based on an incident which occurred on April 24 2009 resulting in the loss of good time On May 6 2009 the Department issued a rejection notification stating that Your request has been rejected for the following reason You are reminded that s complaints about disciplinary matters may not be raised through this procedure As defined in the Administrative Remedy Procedure the appropriate remedy for disciplinary matters is the disciplinary and appeal process The record does not indicate when the prisoner received this notification The Commissioner Screening Report recommended that this appeal of the s s administration decision to reject the complaint as a disciplinary matter improperly asserted in the Administrative Remedy Procedure be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Further insofar as the claim sought monetary damages the report suggested that it must be dismissed as filed in the improper format as an appeal and in the improper venue required by LSA R 15 1 S 84 Louisiana Revised Statutes 1 provides that 1184F 5 The exclusive venue for delictual actions for injury or damages shall be the parish where the prison is situated to which the prisoner was assigned when the cause of action arose Upon consent of all parties the court may transfer the suit to a parish in which venue would otherwise be proper 2 At the time of the incident of which Ford complains he was an inmate of C Paul Phelps Correctional Center located in DeQuincy Louisiana in Calcasieu Parish The judgment of the trial court signed on December 3 2009 adopting as reasons the Commissioner Report dismissed both the good time complaint and s the monetary damage claim at the petitioner costs and without service on the s Department in accordance with R 15 and 15 S 1178 1188 We have maintained the appeal and reviewed the entire record in this matter as well as the applicable law Although petitioner seeks to have other decisions consolidated into this proceeding the appeal being considered is limited to suit number 581 which was the petition for judicial review of rejection of ARP 933 No 2009 0183 We note that this appeal only considered action taken with regard to the rejection of AR 2009183 and not other matters sought to be consolidated P by the petitioner We recognize that while the computation of good time may be challenged in an Administrative Remedy Procedure the loss of good time due to a disciplinary action may not be challenged in an Administrative Remedy Procedure See Williams v Creed 070614 La App 1st Cir 12 07 978 So 419 21 2d Therefore the judgment appealed is affirmed This opinion is released in compliance with Uniform Rules Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 6 1 Costs are assessed to the appellant Roman Ford 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.
