Rogers V. Atkins VS James Leblanc, Secretary, Louisiana Department Public Safety & Corrections, Robert Butler, Chad Manzena and Willie Washington, Officers at Louisiana State Penitentiary
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
T N DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOU SIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 2 04 ROGERS V ATKINS VERSUS JAMES LEBLANC SECRETARY LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ROBERT BUTLER CHAD MANZENA AND WILLIE WASHINGTON OFFICERS AT PUBLIC SAFETY LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY Judgment Rendered May 6 2011 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket Numbcr 583 6U7 Honorable Wilson Fields Judge Presiding Ragers Atkins Angola LA Appellant Plaintiff pro se William Kline Counsel for Defendant ee Appel Baton Rouge LA Louisiana Department of Public BEFORE Safety Corrections WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ WHIPPLE J In this prisoner suit Rogers Atkins an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections the DPSC and confined to the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola Louisiana filed a petition for judicial review challenging the judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for judicial review of Disciplinary Board Appeal Number LSP2009 0300 LSP For the following reasons we affirm the district court judgment s PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 13 2009 Atkins was issued a disciplinary report charging him with a violation of Rule 30E general prohibited behavior After a hearing before the Disciplinary Board Atkins was found guilty of violating the rule and sentenced to a custody change to maximum block working cell Atkins appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Board to the warden but the warden denied his appeal on the grounds that Atkins had been provided a hearing comporting with due process and that the decision s of the Disciplinary Board was appropriate Atkins subsequent appeal to the Secretary of the DPSC was also denied Atkins then commenced these proceedings for judicial review in the district court seeking reversal of the disciplinary finding expungement of the disciplinary report from his prison record a reinstatement of all privileges and back pay of his incentive wages Pursuant to the screening requirements set forth in LSAR 15 the matter was submitted to the S 1178 commissioner for judicial screening prior to service on the named defendants On December 2 2009 the commissioner issued the screening recommendation noting that LSA R 15 authorizes the district S 1177 9 A PA court to intervene in the DPSC decision only if the plaintiffs substantial s rights have been violated The commissioner further determined that s Atkins due process rights were more than satisfied and that the penalty imposed herein did not involve an atypical deprivation of a substantial s right of Atkins Therefore the commissioner recommended that Atkins action be dismissed for failure to raise a substantial right violation i e for failure to state a cause of action After considering the entire record in this matter the district court s adopted the commissioner screening recommendation and rendered judgment dated January 4 2010 dismissing Atkins petition for failure to s raise a substantial right violation and thus to state a cause of action From this judgment Harris appeals contending that his due process rights were violated at the disciplinary hearing 117 RYoUbX9 I After a thorough review of the entire record of these proceedings we find no error in the commissioner sscreening recommendation or in the district court sjudgment IT Due Process Clause does not protect every he change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact S on the prisoner Sandin v Conner 515 U 472 478 115 S Ct 2293 2297 132 L Ed 2d 418 1995 Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system Sandin 115 S Ct at 2301 Discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected parameters of the sentence imposed by a court of law Sandin 115 S Ct at 2301 In the instant case the custody change to working cellblock was not atypical or a significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of 3 prison life Thus the imposition of this penalty did not violate Atkins s constitutional rights and did not afford him a protected liberty interest that would entitle him to procedural protections Sandin 1 S Ct at 2302 15 Parker v LeBlanc 2002 0399 La App 1st Cir 2 845 So 2d 445 03 14 446 Giles v Cain 991201 La App 1s Cir 6 762 So 2d 734 738 00 23 739 Davies v Stalder 20000101 La App 1 Cir 6 762 So 2d st 00 23 1239 1 241 CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons the January 4 2010 judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice Akins petition for judicial s review is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiff Rogers Atkins 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.
