Michael Dorsey VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL CFIRST CIRCUIT 2017 CA 1651 MICHAEL DORSEY VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered: NOV p 2 2018 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No. 656433 Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding Michael Dorsey Plaintiff/ Appellant Cottonport, Louisiana In Proper Person William Kline Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., McCLENDON AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. McCLENDON, J. Petitioner, Michael Dorsey, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" DPSC"), appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mr. Dorsey, who was found to have violated disciplinary rules regarding defiance and aggravated disobedience, was confined to isolated detention for ten days and lost phone privileges for four weeks. Mr. Dorsey sought review of the disciplinary action Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act ( CARP), under the Louisiana LSA- R. S. 15: 1171 et seq. Mr. Dorsey was denied relief at both the first and second steps of the procedure. Thereafter, Mr. Dorsey filed a Petition for Judicial Review with the 19th Judicial District Court. In accordance with screened by a commissioner.' LSA- R. S. 15: 1178, Mr. Dorsey's petition was The commissioner recommended that the district court dismiss Mr. Dorsey's petition because it failed to raise a " substantial right" violation. Subsequently, the district court, adopting the recommendation of the commissioner, dismissed Mr. Dorsey' s petition. Mr. Dorsey has appealed and seeks review of the district court's judgment. DISCUSSION Under CARP, an inmate aggrieved by a disciplinary decision by the DPSC may seek judicial review of that decision pursuant to LSA- R. S. 15: 1177. Section 1177( A)( 9), According to the court can reverse or modify the DPSC' s decision only " substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced." State Penitentiary, 10- 1249 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 11/ 11), if Plaisance v. Louisiana 57 So. 3d 593, 594- 95. A substantial right has been defined as a liberty interest that is protected by the Due 1 The office of commissioner of the 19th JDC was created by LSA- R.S. 13: 711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. LSA- R. S. 13: 713( A). The commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. LSA- R. S. 13: 713( C)( 5). See Martinez v. Tanner, 110692 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 9/ 11), 79 So. 3d 1082, 1084 n. 3, writ denied, 11- 2732 ( La. 7/ 27/ 12), 93 So. 3d 597. 2 Process Clause. Giles v. Cain, 99- 1201 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 23/ 00), 762 So. 2d 734, 738- 39. LSA- R. S. Under 15: 1177( A)( 9), the court may reverse or the modify administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings are: ( 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, ( unlawful 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, ( 3) procedure, ( 4) affected by other error of law, ( characterized by an abuse of discretion, reliable, probative 15: 1177( A)( 9); and substantial or ( 6) evidence Lightfoot v. Stalder, 00- 1120 ( 5) arbitrary, made upon capricious or manifestly erroneous in view of the on the whole record. LSA- R. S. La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 22/ 01), 808 So. 2d 710, 715- 16, writ denied, 01- 2295 ( La. 8/ 30/ 02), 823 So. 2d 957. Following a conviction, the State may confine a criminal defendant and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the confinement conditions do not otherwise violate the Constitution. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 224, 96 S. Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451 ( 1976). The Due Process Clause does not protect every change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner. See Meachum, 427 U. S. at 226- 27 ( transfer from medium -security facility to maximum -security facility did not invoke Due Process Clause). Rather, liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause are generally limited to freedom from restraint that imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 ( Sandin v. Conner, 515 U. S. 472, 484, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300, 1995) and Ray v. Leblanc, 13- 0017 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 13/ 13), 2013 WL 11253307 at * 2 ( unpublished opinion). Further, Louisiana courts are to give great deference to prison administrators in the promulgation and enforcement of disciplinary measures. Only in extreme cases will courts interfere with the administration of prison regulations. Victorian v. Stalder, 99- 2260 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 14/ 00), 770 So. 2d 382, 390- 91. Considering the foregoing, we find that the district court did not err in concluding that Mr. Dorsey' s substantial rights were not prejudiced. Ten days of disciplinary isolated detention and loss of phone privileges for four weeks does not impose atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin, 515 U. S. at 486 ( where segregated confinement did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation creating a liberty interest). These penalties do not involve a liberty interest" or other protected due process right, and therefore do not involve a substantial right." See Davies v. Stalder, 00- 0101 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 23/ 00), 762 So. 2d 1239, 1241. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court dismissing Mr. Dorsey' s petition for judicial review without prejudice is affirmed. All costs of the appeal are assessed against plaintiff-appellant, Michael Dorsey. AFFIRMED. 11

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.