Freddie R. Lewis VS Timothy Wilkinson, Warden, Winn Correctional Center, Corrections Corporation of America and Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 0771 FREDDIE R LEWIS VERSUS TIMOTHY WILKINSON WARDEN WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered December 22 22010 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit number 585 903 Honorable William Morvant Presiding Freddie R Lewis PlaintiffAppellant Winnfield LA Pro se William L Kline Counsel for Defendant Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Baton Rouge LA Safety and Corrections BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ 4 14 1 R 6 rv C a GUIDRY J Petitioner Freddie Lewis is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections and is housed at Winn Correctional Center In September of 2009 the disciplinary board sanctioned Mr Lewis and punished him with a loss of twelve weeks of canteen privileges and twelve weeks of phone privileges for fighting with a fellow inmate Mr Lewis unsuccessfully appealed the Board decision in DBA221 Mr Lewis also filed an administrative remedy s procedure ARP request which was rejected by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections because disciplinary matters are to be appealed exclusively through the disciplinary appellate process Mr Lewis subsequently filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court seeking review of the disciplinary and the administrative decisions and naming as defendants Timothy Wilkinson Warden of Winn Correctional Center and the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections The commissioner for the district court pursuant to screening requirements established by law considered the pleadings to determine whether Mr Lewis stated a claim for which relief was available in either of his appeals and found that there was not After a thorough consideration of all of the evidence the commissioner recommended that rather than dismissing one of the appeals and considering them separately pursuant to the holding in Lightfoot v Stalder 97 2626 La App 1st Cir 98 28 12 727 So 2d 553 both claims should be dismissed for failing to state a substantial right violation and in addition for filing the ARP complaint in the wrong administrative procedure as determined by the final decision of the prison administration In recommending that the disciplinary appeal should be dismissed the commissioner noted that the temporary loss of privileges does not rise to the level of atypical punishment in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest 2 As such because Mr Lewis was given a hearing as shown by the disciplinary report in the record the commissioner determined that Mr Lewis due process s rights were satisfied Further the commissioner noted that Mr Lewis ARP complaint was another attempt to appeal the disciplinary decision and was properly rejected by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections as having been filed under the improper procedure Appeals from disciplinary decisions must follow the disciplinary appeal process as articulated in La R S 1171B 15 and in the s Department regulations contained in LAC Title 22 Part I 361 Finally because Mr Lewis was held to know that a disciplinary board appeal that does not involve a good time loss or other atypical penalty does not state a cause of action the commissioner recommended that the district court impose a strike on Mr Lewis in the final judgment By judgment dated March 29 2010 the district court dismissed Mr Lewis s appeals with prejudice for failure to raise a substantial right violation Moreover the court also assessed Mr Lewis with a strike pursuant to La R 15 S 11841188 for failing to state a cognizable claim or cause of action for relief After a thorough review of the record we find no clear error or error of law in the reasoning and findings of the commissioner and in accordance with Uniform Court of Appeal Rule 2 16 48 affirm the judgment of the district 2A court dismissing Mr Lewis appeals and assessing him with a strike s AFFIRMED 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.
