Gary Boudreaux VS James M. LeBlanc, Secretary Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections; Warden Burl Cain; Asst. Warden Benjamin, Lamartinier & Stagg Lt. Col. Leonard; Lt. Col. Voorhies; Major Dixon; Lt. D. Anthony; T.J. Douzat & Classification Officer J. Joseph;
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APP.~L FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2014 CA 0214 GARY BOUDREAUX VERSUS JAMES M. LEBLANC, SECRETARY LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, ET AL Judgment rendered September 19, 2014. ****** Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Trial Court No. C621826 Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge ****** GARY BOUDREAUX ANGOLA, LA PRO SE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TERRI L. CANNON ANGOLA, LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS ****** BEFORE: KUHN, PETTIGREW, AND WELCH, JJ. PElTIGREW, l. In this case, petitionerf Gary Boudreaux, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC'), filed a request for relief pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177, seeking judicial review of the final agency decision rendered under Disciplinary Board Appeal No. LSP-2012-0562. In said case, petitioner was found guilty of violating Rule #1 (Contraband) and received a sentence of custody change to maximum working cellblock. The petitioner was also ordered to pay $4.05 in restitution pursuant to La. R.S. 15:875(C) for a positive drug screen that formed the basis of the instant disciplinary action. Petitioner was unsucce?sful. in his ~ppeal to the warden, who found that petitioner was provided a due process hearing by the Disciplinary Board and that the sanctions imposed were appropriate. Petitioner'$ appeal to DPSC was also denied. In its decision, DPSC noted that the evidence supported the charge of Contraband, that all DPSC procedures were followed, and that "the sanctions imposed were appropriate." In response to petitioner's petition for judicial review, DPSC filed an exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or no cause of action. Noting that the sanctions imposed did not include a loss of good time, DPSC argued that petitioner had not suffered a violation of a substantial right, and, thus, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Following a de novo review of the record herein, including the traversal by petitioner and the Commissioner's Report, the trial court rendered judgment on December 5, 2013, granting DPSC's exception and dismissing petitioner's suit, for failure 1 to raise a "substantial right' violation. This· app~al by petitioner followed. After a thorough review of the record and relevant juri.sprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's December 5, 2013 judgment by summary disposition, in accordance with Uniform Rules--Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2A(5), (6), (7), and (8). assessed against petitioner, Gary Boudreaux. AFFIRMED. 2 All costs associated with this appeal are
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.
