Joseph Watson VS Tim Wilkinson, Warden, Winn Correctional Center and James Leblanc, Secretary, Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 CA 2084 JOSEPH WATSON VERSUS TIM WILKINSON WARDEN WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER AND JAMES LEBLANC SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish ofEast Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit Number 575 511 Honorable Timothy E Kelley Presiding Joseph Watson PlaintiffAppellant Homer LA Pro Se Jonathan R Vining Baton Rouge LA Appellee Defendant James LeBlanc BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ J GUIDRY J Plaintiff Joseph Watson is presently housed at Wade Correctional Center and has been since 2004 In January of 2009 Mr Watson filed an administrative remedy procedure ARP request seeking restoration of good time credits previously forfeited from 1997 to 2004 at disciplinary hearings at Winn Correctional Center The Department of Corrections rejected his ARP request stating that disciplinary matters are to be appealed through the disciplinary appellate process Mr Watson filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court naming as defendants Tim Wilkinson Warden of Winn Correctional Center and James LeBlanc Secretary of the Department ofCorrections Department After a thorough consideration of all of the evidence the commissioner for the district court found that by using an administrative remedies procedure Mr Watson was attempting to resurrect multiple disciplinary decisions made by Winn Correctional Center between 1997 and 2004 which he had failed to timely seek review of through the disciplinary appeal process as articulated in La R 15 B S 1171 and in the Departments regulations contained in LAC Title 22 Part I 361 Because the disciplinary appeal process is the exclusive remedy afforded to Mr Watson in seeking review of disciplinary decisions the commissioner stated that the s Department rejection of his ARP request was neither arbitrary nor in violation of any of Mr Watson rights By judgment dated August 17 2009 the district court s affirmed the Department decision and dismissed Mr Watson appeal with s s prejudice After a thorough review of the record we find no clear error or error of law in the reasoning and findings of the s report and affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing Mr Watson appeal in accordance with Uniform Court s of Appeal Rule 2 16 48 2A AFFIRMED 2
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.
