Darryl J. Parker VS Louisiana Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 CA 2072 DARRYL J PARKER VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court E Vj In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket Number 575 Division 27 285 Honorable Todd Hernandez Judge Presiding Darryl J Parker Jackson LA PlaintiffAppellant Pro Se William L Kline Attorney for Defendant Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Baton Rouge LA BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WHIPPLE J In this appeal plaintiff Darryl J Parker an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections the DPSC challenges the district court dismissal without prejudice of his Petition for s Writ of Habeas Corpus for failure to state a cause of action and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies For the following reasons we affirm PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 11 2009 Parker filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the DPSC had erroneously determined that he was ineligible for good time credits and that he should be declared eligible Accordingly Parker averred upon being given credit for good time he was entitled to immediate release Pursuant to the requirements of LSA R 15 and LSAR S 1178 S 1188 s 15 Parker petition was screened prior to the DPSC being served with a copy of the pleading and the Commissioner issued a screening report In her screening report the Commissioner concluded that Parker complaint s was in essence a time computation date issue governed by the release Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure CARP LSAR 15 S 1171 et M The Commissioner recommended that Parker spetition be dismissed without prejudice on two bases First the Commissioner concluded that Parker further sought damages for each day he allegedly had been deprived of the right to good time Louisiana 2Revised Statute 15 mandates a judicial screening procedure by 1178 the district court to determine if the petition states a cognizable claim or if the petition on its face is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a cause of action This screening is performed prior to service of the petition on defendants Additionally pursuant to LSA S 1188 R 15 a provision of the Prisoner sLitigation Reform Act the court may screen the case before docketing to identify cognizable claims and may dismiss the petition for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in addition to those remedies listed in LSAR 15 Frederick v Ieyoub 99 0616 La App I Cir S 1178 00 12 5 762 So 2d 144 147 writ denied 2000 1811 La 4 789 So 2d 581 01 12 2 Parker had failed to state a cause of action for habeas relief Secondly because Parker had not exhausted his administrative remedies the Commissioner further concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim pursuant to CARP By judgment dated April 14 2009 the district court in accordance with the screening recommendation dismissed Parker petition without s prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for habeas relief and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction From this judgment Parker appeals However Parker does not set forth any assignments of error in his appellate brief but rather simply restates the merits of the argument he presented to the district court DISCUSSION While Parker petition is styled as a petition for writ of habeas s corpus the complaint set forth therein raises issues of time computation which claims must be pursued initially through CARP CARP is currently the exclusive remedy by which an offender may challenge the DPSC time s computations relative to good time even where an inmate incorrectly labels his or her claim a writ of habeas corpus LSA R 15 S 1171 BFerrington v Louisiana Board of Parole 2003 2093 La App I Cir 6 886 So 04 25 2d 455 457 writ denied 20042555 La 6904 So 2d 741 05 24 Pursuant to LSAR 15 no state court shall entertain an S 1176 s inmate grievance or complaint which falls under the purview of CARP 3W note that the caption of the judgment contains a typographical error in that it lists plaintiff as Darryl Porter rather than Darryl Parker Accordingly we will amend the judgment for the limited purpose of correcting this typographical error in the caption See LSA C art 2164 see also Arrow Fence Company Inc v DeFrancesch 466 So P 2d 631 633 La App 5 Cir writ denied 468 So 2d 575 La 1985 0 unless and until the inmate has exhausted available administrative remedies Therefore where an inmate fails to exhaust available administrative remedies the district court and the appellate court lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim See Hull v Stalder 2000 2730 La App St 1 Cir 2 808 So 2d 829 831 833 Moreover because Parker 02 15 s habeas claim is predicated on his good time eligibility claim he states no claim for immediate release because the triggering event time good eligibility and actual accrual of good timehas not occurred See Ferrington 886 So 2d at 457 458 Accordingly after a thorough review of the entire record of these proceedings we find no error in the judgment of the district court dismissing without prejudice Parker sclaims CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons the caption of the April 14 2009 judgment of the district court dismissing Parker spetition without prejudice 4I Reed v Stalder 20040727 La App I Cir 5 unpublished the 05 6 plaintiff filed a petition for habeas corpus in which she claimed that the DPSC had arbitrarily and erroneously denied her good time credits Pursuant to the screening requirements set forth in LSAR 15 and 15 the Commissioner concluded S 1178 1188 that the plaintiff s complaint was in essence a time computation governed by CARP The Commissioner concluded that because the plaintiff failed to submit her claim through CARP prior to instituting suit in district court the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction On appeal this court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded to allow the plaintiff the opportunity to amend her petition to state that she had exhausted her administrative remedies This court sreason for doing so was predicated on the fact that in the plaintiffs traversal to the Commissioner recommendation she s stated that she had exhausted her administrative remedies and specifically requested the opportunity to amend her petition to comply with the technical requirements of LSA R S 1176 15 Thus Reed is distinguishable from the case presently before us The record in the instant case contains no traversal filed by Parker Moreover to the extent that the notice of appeal could be read to contain an assertion that he exhausted his administrative remedies although not entirely clear in that hand written document Parker makes no such assertion in his appellate brief nor has he specifically requested the opportunity to amend his petition to assert that he exhausted those remedies Therefore in light of s Parker unsubstantiated claim if such a claim was even asserted that he has exhausted administrative remedies and the absence of any request by him for an opportunity to amend his petition we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in not affording Parker an opportunity to amend his petition to assert that he has exhausted his administrative remedies See Harrell v Department of Public Safety and Corrections 2009 1421 La App 1s Cir 2unpublished 10 12 El is amended to change the name of plaintiff in the caption from Darryl Porter to Darryl Parker In all other respects the judgment is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed against Darryl Parker AMENDED AND AS AMENDED AFFIRMED k
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.
