James Isom VS Geo Group, Inc., Pam Doyle, John Oneillion, Ed Shirley, Kent Ryder, Selton Manuel, Coleen Vidrine, O. Kent Andrews, Priscilla Pitre, Terry Terrell, Warden Through the Department of Public Safety & Corrections and James Leblanc, Secretary
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1862 1 J f 7 JAMES ISOM VERSUS U rr GEO GROUP INC PAM DOYLE OHN ONELLION ED SHIRLEY KENT RYDER SELTON MANUEL COLEEN VIDRINE O KENT ANDREWS PRISICILLA PITRE j K ERRY TERRELL WARDEN THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF 1 16 PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS AMES LeBLANC SECRETARY On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 574 Section 27 649 Honorable Todd W Hernandez udge Presiding James Isom Kinder Appellant Plaintiff In Proper Person Lp William L Kline Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Appellee Defendant louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD J7 Judgment JUN 0 4 2010 rendered PARRO James Isom an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC at a facility with a private prison contractor custodian appeals the summary dismissal of his lawsuit without prejudice based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction by the district court In his petition styled as an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Order for Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum the inmate claimed that this type of action could be used to contest the DPSC continuous refusal to restore good time that s had been deemed to have been forfeited in connection with a disciplinary action He essentially alleged his good time had been improperly taken without authoriry by a private prison contractor in violation of the requirements of LSA 39 S5 R1800 The commissioner sscreening report recognized that the inmate fled a claim for habeas relief rather than seeking judicial review by the district court of an adverse decision by the DPSC or a contractor operating a private prison facility rendered pursuant to available administrative remedy procedures See LSA 15 1178 S R 1177 and 1188 Since the inmate complaint challenged the validity of a disciplinary action s the commissioner found that it should have been raised through the disciplinary board appeal process Based on the inmate failure to exhaust required administrative s remedies the commissioner concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the inmate claim See LSA 15 et seq The district s S R 1171 court adopted the written recommendation of the commissioner and dismissed the spetition without prejudice inmate After a thorough review of the record and relevant law and jurisprudence we find that the district court reasons for judgment as set forth in the commissioner s s recommendation adequately explain the decision As the issue involves no more than an application of well rules to a recurring fact situation we affirm the judgment settled See LSA 15 and 1172 Armant v Wilkerson 08 a App lst Cir 5 13 So S R 1171 2287 09 8 3d 621 Singleton v Wilkinson 06 La App lst Cir 2 959 So 969 0637 07 14 Zd Pursuant to LSA S R Cif 1172 15 an administrative remedy process is not completed at the time the petition is filed the suit shall be dismissed without prejudice Where an inmate faiis to exhaust available administrative remedies the district court and the appellate court lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim See Lewis v Roaers OS a App lst Cir 6 938 So 1025 1026 1138 06 9 2d 2 in accordance with URCA Rule 2 2 4 5 6 7 and 8 All costs of 1 A 16 this appeal are assessed against the inmate appellant AFFIRMED Z Although the inmate suit was brought in forma pauperis the costs of an unsuccessful appeal may be s assessed against him See Hull v Stalder 00 La App lst Cir 2 S08 SoZd 829 833 n 2730 02 15 3 see also LSA art 5188 P C 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.
