Paul Jackson VS Terry Terrell, Warden, Allen Correctional Center
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1654 PAULJACKSON I VERSUS TERRY TERRELL WARDEN E I ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER On Appeal from the 19th udicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 565 Division E 23 518 Honorable William A Morvant Judge Presiding Paul Jackson Kinder Appellant Plaintiff In proper person LA Susan Wall Griffin Attorney for AppeNee Defendant ames LeBlanc Secretary 8aton Rouge LA Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND MCDONALD JJ udgment rendered Y c Br C N 4 2 PARRO J An inmate in the legal custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals a district court judgment dismissing his request for judicial review of a final decision by the DPSC in an administrative remedy procedure For the following reasons we affirm Paul Jackson Jackson was arrested and charged with two felony counts namely simpie burglary on November 21 2004 and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine on November 22 2004 Following his convictions Jackson was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for seven and ten years respectively at hard labor and he was committed to the legal custody of the DPSC Prior to serving his sentence at Allen Correctional Center lackson was transferred for housing purposes on July 12 2005 to the jail in Bossier Parish During his incarceration at the parish jail on August 21 2005 Jackson was charged with a contraband violation and was sanctioned by the DPSC to the forfeiture of 180 days of good time and 10 days in isolation On October 4 2005 Jackson was charged a second time with a contraband violation and was sanctioned by the DPSC to the forfeiture of 70 days of good time and 10 days in isolation Jackson urged that following his transfer to the parish facility the local sheriff gained complete authority over him and that he no longer was subject to the rules and regulations of the DPSC Therefore he questioned the DPSC s authority to order the forfeiture of good time that he had earned In support of his assertion ackson relies on LSA 15 S R 8Z9 Prior to its amendment by 2006 La Acts No 60 1 LSA 15 S R 829 provided in pertinent part The director of corrections shall prescribe rules and regulations for the maintenance of good order and discipline in the facilities and institutions under the jurisdiction of the department which rules and 2 regulations shall include procedures for dealing with violations thereof A copy of such rules and regulations shall be furnished each inmate Corporal punishment is prohibited Emphasis added The preamble of Act 60 stated it was to amend and reenact R 15 relative to discipline of inmates S 829 to provide that procedures for discipline of inmates in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections are prescribed by the secretary of the department regardless of where housed to provide that the secretary maintains a record of infractions which occur in state prisons and to provide for related matters Towards this end the legislature amended LSA 15 in part to provide S R 829 A The secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall prescribe rules and regulations for the maintenance of good order and discipline for inmates sentenced to the legal custody of the department whether housed in local or state facilities which rules and regulations shall include procedures for dealing with violations thereof A copy of such rules and regulations shall be furnished each inmate Corporal punishment is prohibited Emphasis added Based on the highlighted change ackson urged that while he was in the Bossier Parish facility only the sheriff of Bossier Parish had the authority to discipline as well as the authority to award and forfeit good time In addressing the authority of the sheriff with respect to an inmate in his physical custody ackson directed this court to Gullette v Caldwell Parish Police Jurv 440 33 La App 2nd Cir 6 765 So 464 00 21 2d In so arguing Jackson overlooked the statutory provisions authorizing the secretary of the DPSC to establish regulations for awarding and recording of good time and to determine when good time has been earned toward diminution of sentence for inmates in DPSC legal custody s See LSA S R B 3 571 15 and 571 Moreover the DPSC was directed to adopt rules to A 4 govern the imposition of the forfeiture of good time for the causes enumerated In Gullette an inmate in the legal custody of the DPSC but being held at a parish detention center who was allegedly injured due to the negligence of the sheriff employees failed to s establish that the DPSC was under any legal duty to the inmate for purposes of the negligence action Although the parish detention center received payment of DPSC funds for housing prisoners under its custody and the DPSC performed periodic inspections at the center the sheriff had complete control and absolute authority over prisoners in his custody including those who remained in legal custody of the DPSC This authority included complete responsibility for the discipline and daily physical protection of prisoners See Gullette 765 2d So at 470 3 in LSA 15 S 4 R 571 Prior to a 2006 amendment LSA 15 S Bprovided R 5713 Every inmate in the custody of the department who has been convicted of a felony except an inmate convicted a second time of a crime of violence as defined by R 14 and S 2 13 sentenced to imprisonment for a stated number of years or months or when the sentencing court has denied or conditioned eligibility for good time as provided in R 15 may earn in S 537 lieu of incentive wages a diminution of sentence by good behavior and performance of work or self activities improvement or both to be known as good time Those inmates serving life sentences will be credited with good time earned which will be applied toward diminution of their sentences at such time as the life sentences might be commuted to a specific number of years The secretary shall establish regulations for awarding and recording of good time and shall determine when good time has been earned toward diminution of sentence diminution of sentence allowed under The amount of the provisions of this Section shall be at the rate of thirty days for every thirty days in actual custody except for an inmate convicted a first time of a crime of violence as defined in R 14 who shall earn S 2 13 diminution of sentence at a rate of three days for every seventeen days in actual custody including time spent in custody with good behavior prior to sentence for which defendant is given credit Concerning the forfeiture of diminution of sentence prior to its amendment by 2009 La Acts No 17 1 LSA 15 provided S 4 R 571 A Determination shall be made by the secretary on a monthly basis as to whether good time has been earned by inmates in the departmenYs custody Good time which has been earned by inmates in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and departmenY Corrections hereinafter shall not be forfeited referred to as the except as provided in Subsection C of this Section B 1 An inmate who is sentenced to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections and who commits a simple or aggravated escape as defined in R 14 from any S 110 correctional facility work facility or from the lawful release custody of any law enforcement officer or o of the cer department or in the case of an inmate serving a sentence and participating in a work program authorized by law fails to release report to or return from his planned employment or other activity under the program may forteit all good time earned on that portion of his sentence served prior to his escape 2 An inmate who has been returned to the custody of the department because of a violation of the terms of parole granted by the Board of Parole shall forfeit all good time earned on that portion of the sentence served prior to the granting of parole z See 2006 La Acts No 174 1 and No 572 1 see also 2008 La Acts No 30 4 1 3 An inmate who is sentenced to the custody of the department and who commits a battery on an employee of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or any police o cer as defined in R 14 may forfeit good time earned on that S 34 2 portion of the sentence served prior to committing the battery of such person up to a maximum of one hundred eighty days 4 In all other cases forfeiture of good time may include up to a maximum of one hundred eighty days C imposition The department shall adopt of the forfeiture rules of good time enumerated in Subsection B of this Section to govern the for the causes The rules shall be adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act The rules shall provide that an inmate has the right to a hearing on any charges which are punishable by the forfeiture of good time and that the inmate may waive that right The rules shall be consistent with and shall implement the provisions of the constitutional statutory and jurisprudential requirements which govern the forfeiture of good time Footnote omitted In his recommendation to the district court the commissioner observed S 571 R 15 authorizes a sheriff to award good time to an A 3 inmate sentenced to imprisonment without hard labor S R B 3 571 15 provides that the Department may award good time to inmates in the custody of the Department who have been convicted of a felony For those inmates sentenced to hard labor it is the Department who awards good time R 15 S 571 A 4 also notes that the Department has the authority to award good time to inmates in the custody of the Department After considering the provisions of Sections 571 and 571 the commissioner 3 4 found that a clear reading of the above provisions together supports cited the finding that the Department may award good time to inmates sentenced to the legal custody of the Department regardless of whether housed in a Department or parish facility Finding that LSA 15 applies to all inmates sentenced to the legal S 4 R 571 B custody of the DPSC the commissioner concluded that the DPSC is authorized to take away or forfeit good time from those inmates regardless of where they are housed We agree with the findings of the commissioner Although the sheriff of Bossier Parish had physical custody of Jackson the DPSC retained legal custody of him By statute the sheriff is charged with the safekeeping of prisoners in 5 his jail including those who are transferred to his jail See LSA 15 S R 704 and 706 While a sheriff may exercise control over inmates in his physical C custody for the purpose of fulfilling this duty the DPSC controls who receives and who loses good time credits relative to those inmates sentenced to its legal custody Accordingly we recognize the DPSC statutory authority in this s respect as another exception to the sheriff absolute authority over an s inmate in his physical custody as recognized by the supreme court in Harper v State Dept of Public Safetv and Corrections 96 La 9 679 So 0047 96 5 2d 1321 1322 23 Finding no legal error in the district court judgment we a that s rm judgment and assess all costs of this appeal to Paul Jackson AFFIRMED 3 In Haroer the supreme court found that the DPSC was not liable for the physical injury to a state prisoner 6y another inmate while the state prisoner was in the sheriff custody Haroer s 679 So at 1324 2d 6
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.
