Ronnie Williams VS State of Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 CA 0495 RONIVIE WILLIAMS VERSUS f STATE OF LOUISIANA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE DATE OFJUDGMENT NOV 9 2011 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 591 DIV 23 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 803 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE WILLIAM MORVANT JUDGE Ronnie Williams Pro se St Gabriel Louisiana William Kline Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellee Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE WHIPPLE KUHN AND GUIDRY JJ Disposition AFFIRMED KUHN J Petitioner appellant Ronnie Williams an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections appeals a district court his judgment dismissing with prejudice demands for habeas corpus and injunctive relief against the Louisiana Board of Parole and Pardons Parole Board for failure to state a cause of action The district court did not allow appellant an opportunity to amend his petition In considering an exception of no cause of action a court must accept all wellpleaded facts in the petition as true The function of the exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts of the pleading Everything on Wheels Subaru Inc v Subaru South Inc 616 So 1234 1235 La 1993 2d Cage v Adoption Options of Louisiana Inc 94 2173 p 3 La App 1st Cir 95 23 6 657 So 670 671 2d Because it raises a question of law an appellate court reviews an exception of no cause of action de novo Louisiana State Bar n Ass v Carr and Associates Inc 08 2114 p 11 La App 1 st Cir 05 15 09 08 3d So 158 167 writ denied 091627 La 10 21 So 292 A judgment 09 30 3d sustaining a peremptory exception shall permit amendment of the petition when I Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 provides in pertinent part that 1188A The court shall review before docketing if feasible or in any event before service on the defendants a petition in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity On review the court shall identify cognizable fails to state a cause of claims or dismiss the petition if the petition action or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted Emphasis added 14 the grounds of the objection may be removed by amendment However when the grounds of the objection cannot be removed by amendment the action shall be dismissed See La C art 934 American Intern Gaming Assn Inc v P Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Com 002864 p 17 La App 1 st Cir 09 n 02 11 838 So 5 18 2d A review of the allegations of appellant spetition styled as an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Temporary Injunction reveals that the basis of his demands is the claim that his prospective release for diminution of sentence due to good time while being subject to parole supervision as required by La R S 2as well as the payment of parole supervision fees violates his 5B 571 15 constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and subjects him to double jeopardy involuntary servitude and the ex post facto application of law regarding his sentence He further claims that the requirements of parole supervision and the payment of supervision fees constitute a breach of the contract he signed when he opted to receive good time credits in lieu of incentive wages as well as rendering his sentence illegal because he was sentenced under a provision that does not allow parole eligibility Appellant further asserts that he agreed to parole supervision under duress when he signed up for good time eligibility In Ferrington v Louisiana Board of Parole 03 2093 La App 1st Cir 04 25 6886 So 455 writ denied 04 2555 La 6904 So 741 this 2d 05 24 2d Court rejected similar arguments that the requirement of La R 15 that an S 571 5 inmate who has obtained a good time release be subject to parole supervision violated the inmate constitutional rights s This Court concluded that even accepting the allegations of the inmate petition as true the pleading failed to s 3 state a cause of action since the constitutionality of La R S 5 571 15 has previously been upheld Ferrington 03 2093 at p 7 886 So at 459 See also 2d Manuel v Stalder 04 1920 La App 1st Cir 12 928 So 24 rejecting a 05 22 2d claim that the La S R 15 571 5 requirement of parole supervision was unconstitutional as to the petitioner because his sentence provided he was ineligible for parole Frederick v Ieyoub 99 0616 La App 1st Cir 5 00 12 762 So 144 writ denied 00 1811 La 4 789 So 581 rejecting 2d 01 12 2d substantive due process and equal protection challenges to La R 15 S 571 5 Bancroft v Louisiana Dept of Corrections 93 1135 La App 1 st Cir 4 94 8 635 So 738 rejecting arguments of duress ex post facto violation and breach 2d of contract Accordingly based on our de novo review ofthe petition we conclude that because it failed to assert facts upon which relief may be granted the district court properly dismissed appellant demands against the Parole Board for failure to s state a cause of action We further conclude that no possible amendment could cure the deficiencies of the petition All costs of this appeal are assessed against appellant Ronnie Williams AFFIRMED
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.
