Glenn Hill VS Louisiana Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CA 2080 GLENN HILL LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered June 8 2012 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 603 029 R Honorable R Michael Caldwell Judge Presiding Glenn Hill Plaintiff Appellant Angie LA In Proper Person William Kline Jr Attorney for Defendant Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Baton Rouge LA Corrections BEFORE CARTER C PARRO AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ J HIGGINBOTHAM J Glenn Hill an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals a screening judgment dismissing his petition with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action For the following reasons we affirm DISCUSSION According to the record Hill filed a petition for judicial review of DPSC s decision rendered under Disciplinary Board Appeal No DCI 2011 39 wherein he was convicted of violating Rule 5 Aggravated Disobedience and was sentenced to extended lockdown and 30 days of room confinement He claims that the disciplinary board erred in denying his motion to defer and that the punishment imposed was excessive Hill filed an administrative remedy procedure request pursuant to the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act La R S 71 11 15 1179 and was denied at both steps ofthe process The DPSC Secretary s decision stated that the disciplinary board had acknowledged Hill motion to defer s and verbally informed him why it would not be granted The Secretary further stated that Hill was provided a full hearing and was afforded due process in both the hearing and sentencing phases ofthe proceeding Hill filed a petition for judicial review with the 19th Judicial District Court seeking reversal of the decision of the disciplinary board and requesting that the room confinement sentence which had been served be credited to any future sentences of room confinement A screening judgment signed by the district court on August 15 2011 adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner and dismissed Hill suit with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action s 2 The district court also imposed a strike in accordance with La R 15 for S 1187 s Hill failure to state a cause of action or raise a cognizable claim The Commissioner sScreening Recommendation stated the following Hill has no constitutional or substantial right to any particular housing classification job classification or recreational hobby craft See Sandin v Conner 515 U 472 115 S 2293 132 L S Ct 2d Ed 418 1995 Meachum v Fano 427 U 215 96 S 2532 49 S Ct 2d Ed L 451 1976 Taylor v Broom 526 So 1367 La App 1st 2d 1988 Cir In cases such as this one where the potential punishment only affects a custody classification and not eventual release due process merely requires that the prisoner be allowed to give his version of the incident Hill fails to allege that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary board constitutes an atypical deprivation of a substantial right of Hill This Commissioner finds Hill has failed to state a cause of action for judicial review in this matter and Hill cannot amend to cure the defect in his pleadings Citation omitted The district court judge reviewed the record and rendered a judgment in accord with the Commissioner sRecommendation This appeal by Hill followed After thorough review ofthe record we find no error in the district court judgment entered herein Therefore the trial court judgment recognizing and granting the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissing s Hill suit is affirmed All costs associated with the appeal are assessed against plaintiff Glenn Hill We issue this memorandum opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 1B F1 yW1 161N0 La R 15 provides S 1187 In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding in forma pauperis if the prisoner has on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained in any facility brought an action or appeal in a state court that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous was malicious flailed to state a cause of action or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury K
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.
