Maurice Gibbs VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (2007CW1066R)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2011 CA 0626 MAURICE GIBBS VERSUS 1 STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION THROUGH LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY RICHARD STALDER SECRETARY BURL CAIN WARDEN DORA RABALAIS DIRECTOR LSP LEGAL PROGRAMS AND NUMBER 2007 CW 1066R MAURICE GIBBS VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered December 21 2011 E3EWWWWW3 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 533 362 Honorable Kay Bates Judge Maurice Gibbs In Proper Person Plaintiff Appellant Angola LA L Bruce Dodd Susan W Griffin Baton Rouge LA James LeBlanc Terri L Cannon Attorney for Angola LA C A Attorneys for Defendant Appellee Defendant Appellee La Dept of Public Corrections Safety BEFORE PETTIGREW McCLENDON AND WELCH JJ rt a rvvc A WELCH J Maurice Gibbs a prisoner in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review We affirm On June 15 2005 Gibbs filed this petition for judicial review of s DPSC denial of his request for an administrative remedy alleging that he had been denied access to legal materials by DPSC The record reflects that on December 4 2003 Gibbs instituted a request for an administrative remedy with DPSC claiming he had been denied access to legal materials In a letter to DPSC dated that same day Gibbs claimed that he received only one law book since October 2003 and he made a written request for over 20 cases The record contains law library request forms showing that from November 18 2003 through March 2004 Gibbs received a law book and copies of requested case law often two to three cases at a time from the law library on at least 18 occasions DPSC undertook an investigation of Gibbs claims and denied Gibbs request for a remedy on the basis that Gibbs lacked evidence to support his assertion that he had been denied access to legal materials In his petition challenging DPSC denial of his request for an s administrative remedy Gibbs made the following allegations 1 before and after November 24 2003 and currently he was not allowed to receive law books needed to determine how to present viable claims in his application for post conviction relief he had to file by February 2004 2 from October 13 2003 to the present DPSC failed to provide him with a proficient law book system and prohibited him from receiving law books while housed in administrative segregation contrary to its own policies 3 before June 7 2001 Gibbs and other prisoners were falsely accused of damaging law books or were not given law books after complaining about not receiving the books 2 4 he was denied law books in retaliation for complaining about not receiving law materials and 5 the lack of evidence as to the specific dates Gibbs received adequate access to legal reference materials renders DPSC s decision manifestly erroneous After reviewing the administrative record a commissioner assigned to the district court recommended that DPSC decision be affirmed and the s request for judicial review be dismissed The commissioner concluded that Gibbs failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that he was denied requested legal materials as alleged in his initial request for administrative relief The commissioner noted that record did not support Gibbs claim the that he was denied materials in the months of October and November of 2003 and further showed that Gibbs did in fact receive legal materials on numerous The court affirmed DPSC decision s dates following his request for relief and dismissed Gibbs lawsuit adopting the commissioner sreport as reasons for the dismissal On October 16 2006 Gibbs filed a notice of intent to apply for supervisory writs On December 14 2006 the court ordered that Gibbs be allowed to file his writ application in accordance with law Gibbs filed a request for an extension of time to file the writ application on November 17 2006 and did so again on February 13 2007 The district court denied the latter motion as untimely and on June 4 2007 Gibbs filed a writ application with this court On August 6 2007 this court denied Gibbs writ application Gibbs sought supervisory review from the supreme court which on January 30 2009 granted the writ and ordered this court to reach the merits of Gibbs writ application On February 3 2011 this court ordered the clerk of court to file copies of the record and the respondents to file briefs with this court On March 1 3 2011 Gibbs filed a Motion for Appeal of the September 26 2006 judgment and an appeal was granted by the court An extension for filing the record was granted by this court with a return date set for April 6 2011 On April 5 2011 the appeal was lodged in this court under docket number 2011 CA0626 This court issued an interim order assigning Gibbs writ application to the same panel that was assigned the appeal Gibbs asserts that the district court erred in 1 relying on alternative grounds for denying his administrative procedure request 2 failing to evaluate the competency of the hearsay evidence relied upon by DPSC in arriving at its decision against him on his administrative remedy procedure 3 failing to consider competent evidence in the record material to a proper determination of the claims raised by Gibbs in the administrative remedy process or his petition for judicial review 4 failing to expand the record and allowing Gibbs to present additional evidence at the trial court level 5 not finding that DPSC actions in failing to preserve all responses and pertinent s documentation relative to his administrative request makes adequate review impossible and 6 failing to find DPSC abused its discretion in denying his administrative remedy request on the basis of unreliable or untrustworthy information which deprived Gibbs of his substantial rights or due process and that DPSC failed to abide by its own rules in conducting the underlying hearing Essentially Gibbs contends that the prison officials denied him access to legal materials that DPSC relied on hearsay evidence in denying his request for relief and that the administrative record is so poor and incomplete that no accurate ruling could be made We have reviewed the record and find no error in the decision of the In his writ application and appellate brief Gibbs asserts the identical assignments of error with respect to the September 26 2006 judgment Because we have found that Gibbs appeal has been timely perfected and the appeal and the writ application raise the same issues we exercise our appellate jurisdiction to review the judgment judgment of the district court We affirm the judgment and issue this memorandum opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 All costs of this appeal are assessed to Maurice Gibbs B 1 AFFIRMED WRIT DENIED k
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.
