Calvin Walker VS Louisiana Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 0057 CALVIN WALKER VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket Number 571 958 The Honorable William Morvant Judge Presiding Calvin Walker PlaintiffAppellant in Proper Person Winnfield LA Calvin Walker Jonathan R Vining Baton Rouge LA James M LeBlanc Counsel for Defendant Appellee BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WHIPPLE J Plaintiff Calvin Walker an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections the Department Correctional Center WCC housed at Winn challenges a judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for judicial review For the following reasons we affirm PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 24 2006 plaintiff filed an Administrative Remedy Procedure ARP seeking restoration of his good time which had been forfeited in March 2001 July 2001 October 2001 and August 2003 In support plaintiff relied on Singleton v Wilkinson 20060637 La App i Cir 2 959 So 07 14 2d 969 where this court held that the Department oversight and approval was s required to validate the WCC private company administrator decision s imposing forfeiture of an inmate good time days pursuant to LSAR s S 5 1800 39 Singleton v Wilkinson 959 So 2d at 971 The administration rejected his request noting that forfeiture of good time matters are disciplinary matters that must be appealed through a Disciplinary Board Appeal and the disciplinary appeals process Nonetheless plaintiff filed a document styled Disciplinary Board Appeal which he pursued through his ARP In response to plaintiff appeal Tim Morgan Deputy Warden at WCC s issued a letter to plaintiff dated August 15 2008 wherein he advised plaintiff that his Disciplinary Board Appeal was being returned to him due to ineligibility Louisiana Revised Statute 39 5provides in part as follows 1800 No contract for correctional services shall authorize allow or imply a delegation of authority or responsibility to a prison contractor for any of the following 5 Granting denying or revoking sentence credits 2 Morgan explained therein that an inmate seeking to appeal a case to the Disciplinary Board must appeal to the warden within 15 days of the hearing and since plaintiff hearings were held on February 21 2001 July 30 2001 October s 10 2001 and August 5 2003 the time limitations for filing a disciplinary appeal had expired On October 23 2008 plaintiff filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court reurging the request for relief set forth in his ARP The Commissioner issued a report on August 17 2009 noting that s plaintiff claim involved disciplinary decisions that resulted in the forfeiture of good time between 2001 and 2003 She further noted that his complaint was filed six years after three of the forfeitures and four years after the latest forfeiture as an ordinary prison grievance in an ordinary ARP The Commissioner found that the relief sought by plaintiff in these proceedings i e review of the past losses of good time credits had been available directly through the disciplinary appellate process at the time ofthe forfeitures and that plaintiff had failed to avail himself of those appellate remedies In affirming the administrative rejection ofplaintiff s claims in this case the Commissioner noted 1 that due process had been satisfied herein by the disciplinary appellate rights afforded plaintiff after each good time loss pursuant to LSA R 15 and 15 and 2 that plaintiff S 1171 1177 was not entitled to initiate a later claim under ARP for additional relief on the same disciplinary decisions which were subject to promulgated disciplinary procedures including appellate delays on each proceeding The Commissioner also distinguished the instant case from Singleton noting that in Sinlg eton the administration had accepted and answered ssimilar complaint asserted in an ARP proceeding unlike here where Singleton it was properly rejected Moreover while noting that the administrative rules referred to in LSAR 15 allow the administration the discretion to S 1171 3 consider an out of time appeal of a disciplinary matter the Commissioner further recognized that the rules also grant the administration the authority to reject the request if there are specialized administrative remedy procedures in place for the particular type of complaint See La Admin Code Title 22 Part 1 325 Accordingly the Commissioner recommended that the rejection of the ARP be affirmed On September 16 2009 the district court rendered judgment adopting the s Commissioner report and the reasons set forth therein thereby affirming the administrative decision and dismissing plaintiff appeal with prejudice at s s plaintiff costs Plaintiff then filed the instant appeal DISCUSSION On appeal plaintiff contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for judicial review and in affirming the rejection of his complaint In addition to Singleton plaintiff cites this court opinion in Armant v s Wilkerson 2008 2287 La App I Cir 5 13 So 3d 621 where he 09 8 contends the plaintiff set forth a similar challenge to his good time forfeiture involving review of twelve disciplinary reports going back some years which was not rejected as in the instant case but actually was heard through the ARP process At the outset we note that in Armant v Wilkerson the issue of the propriety of allowing review of every disciplinary report ever issued to a particular inmate within one suit for judicial review was noted but not addressed Instead the issue was specifically pretermitted given the absence of any objection and the State specific acquiescence to the inmate motion to s s expand the record and pleadings which the Commissioner had granted See Armant v Wilkerson 13 So 3d at 623 n Thus Armant is not dispositive 2 19 Moreover in the instant case we note that LSAR 15 S 1171 Brequires disciplinary appellate exhaustion for complaints relating to good time computations in accord with the Department specific disciplinary rules as s follows may also adopt in accordance B The department with the Administrative Procedure Act administrative remedy procedures for receiving hearing and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by adult or juvenile offenders the department or any officials or employees thereof the contractor operating a private prison against the state facility or any of its employees shareholders directors officers or agents or a sheriff his deputies or employees which arise while an offender is within the custody or under the supervision of the department a contractor operating a private prison facility or a sheriff Such complaints and grievances include but are not limited to any and all claims seeking monetary injunctive declaratory or any other form of relief authorized by law and by way of illustration includes actions pertaining to conditions of confinement personal injuries medical malpractice time computations even though urged as a writ of habeas corpus or Such challenges to rules regulations policies or statutes administrative procedures when promulgated shall provide the exclusive remedy available to the offender for complaints or grievances governed thereby insofar as federal law allows All such procedures including the adult and juvenile offender shall be deemed to be the exclusive disciplinary process remedy for complaints and grievances to which they apply insofar as federal law allows Footnote omitted emphasis added Thus we agree with the Commissioner that if dissatisfied with the forfeiture of his good time plaintiff could have appealed the forfeiture of good time through the appellate process afforded therein and should have done so in the time frame available to him in each instance where it was lost Moreover the administrative procedure rules specifically the screenout provisions set forth in Title 22 Part 1 a 1 F 325 adopted in accordance with LSA R 15 S 1171 Brecognize the Department sauthority to reject a complaint involving a disciplinary matter asserted through ARP where as here there are 5 specialized administrative remedy procedures in place for the specific type of complaint Thus on review considering the authority afforded the Department we find no error in the Department rejection of plaintiffs administrative request for s reinstatement of good time forfeited in previous disciplinary proceedings which clearly were subject to the Department promulgated disciplinary procedures s including applicable appellate delays for each proceeding Accordingly we find no merit to his assignment of error CONCLUSION After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the district court herein inasmuch as plaintiff failed to timely seek review of the sanctions imposed for his past disciplinary infractions and instead improperly initiated review pursuant to ARP Accordingly the September 16 2009 judgment of the district court is affirmed All costs associated with this appeal are assessed to the plaintiffappellant Calvin Walker AFFIRMED Louisiana Administrative Code Title 22 Part 1 iiprovides as a 1 F 325 follows If a request is rejected it must be for one of the following reasons which shall be noted on Form ARP ii There are specialized administrative remedy procedures in place for this specific type of complaint such as a disciplinary matters b lost property claims Emphasis ours
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.
