Gerald A. Worachek VS Richard Stalder, James Leblanc, Dalton Harrell, Unknown Chief Probation & Parole Officer, Unknown Director of Probation & Parole and Louisiana Department of Public Safety

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0059 GERALD A WORACHEK VERSUS RICHARD STALDER JAMES LeBLANC DALTON HARRELL UNKNOWN CHIEF PROBATION PAROLE OFFICER UNKNOWN DIRECTOR OF PROBATION PAROLE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Judgment Rendered JUN 1 1 2010 On Appeal from the Twenty Judicial District Court Third In and for the Ascension State of Louisiana Docket No 93169 Honorable Jane Triche Milazzo Judge Presiding Gerald Worachek Appellant Defendant Homer Louisiana In Proper Person James D Buddy Caldwell Attorney General Counsel for DefendantsAppellees James M LeBlanc and Genie Powers Patricia Wilton Assistant Attorney General Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ McCLENDON 7 The appellant seeks review of the district court grant of an exception of s prematurity For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 13 2009 Gerald A Worachek an inmate incarcerated at David Wade Correctional Center in Homer Louisiana filed the instant petition in the 23 Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully incarcerated from August 20 2000 to January 8 2001 and prayed that he be awarded damages arising therefrom On September 3 2009 defendants James M LeBlanc Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Corrections and Genie Powers Director of Adult Probation and Parole filed a declinatory exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction asserting that plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act CARP LSAR S 1171 15 etseq prior to filing suit in district court On October 26 2009 the trial court converted defendants exception to one of prematurity and granted the exception Plaintiff has appealed contending that he is not required to follow the CARP procedure DISCUSSION Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 requires an offender within the B 1171 custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections the Department to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit on any cause of action including but not limited to any and all claims seeking monetary Such administrative relief procedures provide the exclusive remedy available to offenders for the purpose of preserving any cause of action claimed against the Department LSAR 15 LSAR 15 Robinson v Parole S 1171 B S 1172 A and Probation Div Dept of Pub Safety and Corrections 001574 p 3 App La 1 Cir 9 819 So 1031 1033 01 28 2d No state court shall entertain an offender grievance or complaint which falls under the purview of the s administrative remedy procedure unless and 2 until the offender shall have exhausted the remedies as provided in said procedure LSAR 15 If S 1172 B the offender has failed to timely pursue administrative remedies through this procedure any petition he files shall be dismissed LSAR 15 S 1172 B Robinson 001574 at pp 3 4 819 So at 1033 2d Plaintiff asserts that he was not required to seek review under CARP because he was not an offender insofar as he was unlawfully detained by the Department Plaintiff contends that on August 17 2000 an erroneous arrest warrant was issued for a supposed probation violation and he was unlawfully detained in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison from August 20 2000 through January 2001 However plaintiff notes that on October 15 2008 the 19 Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge rendered a judgment ordering the Department to amend its internal document to reflect that plaintiff s full term release date on the three year sentence became final on July 14 or 15 2000 by virtue of his full service of 2 1 years in custody and 6 months on 2 probation Plaintiff concludes that at the time he was taken into custody for the alleged parole violation he had been illegally detained and was not an offender subject to the provisions of CARP We note however that the status of offender is determined at the time the basis for a complaint or grievance arises Subsequent events including post trial judicial action or release from custody shall not affect the status as an offender for purposes of CARP LSAR 15 S 1171 DLSAR 15 S 1174 2 Plaintiff was within the Department custody since his arrest in August 2000 s through January 8 2001 when the basis for his damage claim arose for the alleged unlawful detention Moreover plaintiff has remained in the Department s custody since his arrest until the present Accordingly the subsequent judicial action by the district court on October 15 2008 had no effect on his status as an offender for purposes of CARP Thus plaintiff is required to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to seeking review in the district court 1 The record reflects that plaintiff pursuant to LSAR 14 received a twenty year S 98 eight sentence for a fourth offense of driving while intoxicated following his arrest in August 2000 but the sentence is immaterial to our determination herein 3 DECREE For the foregoing reasons we affirm the judgment of the district court Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff Gerald A Worachek AFFIRMED a

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.