Jason Chavanel VS Howard Prince, Warden Cornel Hubert, Deputy Warden Greg McKey, Assistant Warden Allen Verrett, Major-Investigator James Leblanc, DOC Secretary Individually & in their Official Capacities
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCJIT N0 2012 CA 1501 JASON CHAVANEL VERSUS HOWARD PRINCE WARDEN CORNEL HUBERT DEPUTY WARDEN GREG MCKEY ASSISTANT WARDEN ALLEN VERRETT MAJOR INVESTIGATOR JAMES LEBLANC DOC SECREfARY INDIVIDUALLY IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES n udgment rendered v MAR 2 5 2013 Appealed from the 19 Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court No 596 990 Honorable Todd Hernandez Judge JASON CHAVANEL IN PROPER PERSON ST GABRIEL LA APPELLANT PLAINTIFF PATRICIA H WILTON ATTORNEY FOR BATON ROUGE LA APPELLEES DEFENDANTS HOWARD PRINCE CORNEL HUBERT GREG MCKEY ALIEN VERRETf TERRY MAYEUX WILLIAM L KLINE BATON AMES LEBLANC ATTORNEY FOR LA ROUGE APPELLEE DEFENDANT JAMES M LEBLANC BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ PETTIGREW Petitioner Jason Chavanel an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals a judgment affirming DPSC final s agency decision rendered under Disciplinary Board Appeal No EHCG2009 279 dismissing the claims alleged in his petition for judicial review for failure to raise a substantial right violation and imposing a strike against him For the following reasons we affirm DISCUSSION Chavanel was convicted of violating Rule 30I General Prohibited Behavior and Rule 1 Contraband and was sentenced to a custody change to maximum working cellblock and a temporary loss of canteen privileges After exhausting his administrative remedies Chavanel filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court DPSC responded to the petition with an exception raising the objection of no cause of action Noting that Chavanel had suffered no significant deprivation of his rights and had not been deprived of any vested property right DPSC argued that his petition did not state a cause of action The matter was then referred to a commissioner for review pursuant to La R 15 The commissioner recommended that Chavanel claims S 1188 s be dismissed with prejudice for failure to raise aright violation substantial commissioner also recommended that Chavanel be assessed The a strike under La R S 1187 15 for failing to state a cause of action or raise a cognizable claim Chavanel timely filed a traversal of that recommendation reiterating his arguments to the court On August 23 2011 a judgment was signed affirming DPSC decision dismissing s 1 The offices of commissioner of the 19th Judicial District Court were created by La R 13 to hear and S 711 recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners La R 13 The district judge may accept reject or modify in whole or in part the findings or S 713 A recommendations made by the commissioner and also may receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the commissioner with instructions La R 13 S 713 S C Z The commissioner made other recommendations that are not relative to this appeal namely that s Chavanel damage claims and related claims for declaratory relief be dismissed pursuant to La R S C 1177 15 and that all defendants with the eacception of DPSC be dismissed pursuant to La R S A 1177 15 2 s Chavanel petition for failure to raise a substantial right violation and imposing a strike against Chavanel This appeal followed As noted by the commissioner the courts may intervene in the decisions of DPSC only in cases where substantiai ights of khe petitioner haue been prejudiced See La S 1177 R 15 The peralties impc hereir i cus change and temporary 9 A sed e tody restriction of canteen privileges do not rise to tne ievel of atypical punishment or a dramatic departure from basic prison conditions Therefore modification or reversal of the disciplinary action was not warranted under the iaw After a thorough review of the record in consideration of Chavanel arguments on appeal and applying the relevank s law and jurisprudence we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the district court in adopting as its own the commissioner report s We therefore affirm the August 23 2011 judgment of the district court and find that the district court reasons s for judgment as set forth in the commissioner srecommendations adequately explain the decision All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against petitioner Jason Chavanel AFFIRMED I 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.
