Freddie R. Lewis VS Timothy Wilkinson, Warden, Winn Correctional Center, Corrections Corporation of America and Secretary, Department Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 0205 FREDDIE R LEWIS 9 J rV VERSUS TIMOTHY WILKINSON WARDEN WINK CORRECTIONAL CENTER CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CORRECTIONS DATE OF JUDGMENT SEP 2 1 2012 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 585 SECTION 22 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 902 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE TIMOTHY KELLEY JUDGE Freddie R Lewis Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Winnfield Louisiana Freddie R Lewis Ronald E Corkern Jr Counsel for Defendant Appellee Natchitoches Louisiana Timothy Wilkinson Warden of Winn Correctional Center Corrections Corporation of America Stalder BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND MCDONALD JJ Disposition AFFIRMED Richard KUHN J Appellant Freddie R Lewis Lewis an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC at a facility with a private prison contractor custodian filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court seeking review of his lost property claim We affirm the judgment dismissing his claim In September 2009 appellant filed a lost property claim with prison officials seeking reimbursement for personal property including various items of food and clothing that he alleged was lost or stolen by prison staff during an inventory of his property According to an itemized list prepared by appellant the total value of the property was 153 Fallowing an investigation by prison officials appellant 14 rejected an offer to settle the claim in exchange for a pair of sweatpants and a sweatshirt After the denial of his further requests for administrative relief appellant filed a petition for judicial review in district court During the pendency of this matter on March 17 2011 appellant signed a Release Form in which he acknowledged receipt of 153 as full settlement ofhis 14 2009 lost property claim However appellant refused to sign a joint motion to dismiss the matter in district court Thereafter DPSC filed a peremptory exception of res judicata in the district court seeking dismissal of appellant claims on the s basis of the March 2011 settlement and release The commissioner who reviewed this matter issued a final report recommending that appellant petition for review of his lost property claim be s The office of commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court was created by La R S A 711 13 2 dismissed as moot in view of the release he signed The commissioner further recommended that appellant claim for additional damages of 100 per day as a s 00 sanction for the alleged theft by fraud also be dismissed since the district court lacked authority to grant such damages under La R 15 S 1177 C Lastly the commissioner recommended that any costs related to this matter that previously were deducted from appellant inmate banking account should be reimbursed to s him The district rendered court judgment in accordance with these recommendations adopting the commissioner sreport as its reasons for judgment The instant appeal followed On appeal appellant argues that he never agreed to settle his lost property claim and no settlement occurred since he refused to sign the joint motion to dismiss prepared by DPSC Additionally he contends that the March 2011 release was illegally and improperly obtained and that the district court should not have considered either the release form or documents reflecting deposits made into his inmate bank account because those items were not part of the administrative record After a thorough review of the record we find that the district court sreasons for judgment as set forth in the commissioner report attached hereto as Appendix s A adequately explain the court decision Based on our review we find no s manifest or legal error or abuse of discretion in the judgment rendered Accordingly the judgment of the district court is affirmed All costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant Freddie R Lewis AFFIRMED Although appellant took this appeal inpauperis the costs of his unsuccessful appeal may be assessed against him See La C art 5188 Hull v Stalder 002730 La App 1 st Cir P 02 15 2 808 So 829 833 n 2d 3 3 APPENDIX A FINAL COMMISSIONER REPORT S This report is issued on the appellate record filed herein and on the pleadings and objections filed since an alleged settlement of the claim for the Court novo review and sde determination ofwhether the instant appeal is not moot and should be dismissed as such The Petitioner an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections filed this appeal of PROPERTY LOSS claim accordance with R 15 et seq S 1173 WNCog 918 seeking review in The claim sought reimbursement for personal property lost by prison officers on or about 9 10og valued at 153 by the Petitioner The respondent 14 filed the entire administrative record of the claim which has been accepted as Exh A in globo which includes two Release Forms showing the administration attempt to settle the claim The s first Release Form was rejected by the Petitioner as shown by his signature and statement that he refused to accept replacement items for the loss of his property The second Release Form 2 signed by the Petitioner on March 17 2o11 acknowledges receipt of 153 in full settlement 14 and release of the above described 2009 property claim While a settlement of the entire claim would make this appeal moot the Court notes that the Petitioner has since filed an objection to dismissal of this suit as moot alleging that the 153 was not deposited into his inmate 14 banking account and that he did not intend to settle the suit without court costs and possibly additional damages Since the administrative record did not contain any evidence showing that the settlement amount was actually deposited to the Petitioner sinmate banking account in March 2o11 the Court issued an Order to the Respondents to file proof of deposit of 153 into 14 the Petitioner inmate banking account in full settlement of this property claim s The Defendants responded by letter to the Court and copy to the Petitioner dated May 23 2011 which is in the record for review Attached to the letter is a copy of Mr Lewis inmate s banking report 3 That report shows that on 3 2011 28 two deposits were made to the saccount in the amount of 76 each for a total of 153 the exact amount of Petitioner 57 14 the claim filed herein and the exact amount upon which the Petitioner signed a Release form in March 2011 The Petitioner filed another objection seeking to suppress the proof based on his See property loss claim form signed by the Petitioner on 917og in Exh A 2 See Release form dated November A 2oog in the record a Mr Lewis saccount is identified by his DOC inmate number 395306 which is the same number the Petitioner assigns next to his name on his pleadings 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT contention that he never settled the claim out of court to allow the defendants to escape liability for court costs and fees and possible nominal damages 4 Further he asserts that the document ostensibly showing deposits to his banking account is not actually a record of money deposited into his account but simply an inmate banking sheet showing what was received by Inmate Banking and what was deducted from the said receipts 5 However as to the first contention that he did not intend to settle his claim by the release form the record does in fact contain a Release Form signed by the Petitioner on March 17 2011 stating that the Petitioner was accepting 153 as full settlement of his 2009 property 14 claim and releasing the respondents from any further liability for the lost property The current ARP involves a 2009 property claim for which the Petitioner initially sought 153 as reimbursement from the prison authority for property they allegedly lost Even though the Petitioner objects now to the settlement he is bound by it and additionally he would not be entitled to anything more than the reimbursement cost from this Court even if he pursued this appeal As to the release form the Petitioner does not even allege that he did not sign the receipt and release in the record In addition the signature of Freddie R Lewis 395306 is consistent with and similar to the signatures on all of his numerous pleadings in this suit Without proof to the contrary that the signature is his which can be filed in a traversal I suggest that the Release Form is valid and binding As to the second contention that the banking document filed does not show a deposit to saccount I note that the Petitioner concedes in his objection that he refers to it as his Petitioner inmate balance sheet and shows what money was received by inmate banking on his account 395306 The fact that the 153 was not deposited until a week or so after the date of release form does not in my opinion invalidate the release agreement The difference in the dates does not concern the Court unless the Petitioner can show that the money deposited 14 153 was not put into his account by the prison administration or on their behalf but was deposited by some private person in support of the Petitioner unrelated to the property claim Absent evidence to the contrary provided during the traversal period it is clear to the Court that the 153 deposit into the Petitioner 14 sinmate account DOC 395306 in March 2011 is the proof of payment by the Defendants of the amount the Petitioner signed for and accepted in the Release dated March 17 2011 in the suit record The deposit is in an amount that coincides precisely with the total value the Petitioner assigned to his own property lost in 2009 153 If the Court agrees that proof of settlement is sufficient with the showing of the 14 See Pro Se Disclaimer Pro Se Disclaimer p 21 See Exh A the March 17 2011 Release Form 4 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT deposit and release signed by the Petitioner for the full amount assigned by him to the lost property the issue in this appeal of WNCog 218 is rraoot I note however that the Petitioner also requested in his appellate petition monetary sanctions or damages in the amount of loo a day for theft by fraud which this Court is clearly without any authority to grant in this administrative appeal pursuant to R 1177C 5 1 S That claim should be dismissed pursuant to R 1177C 1 S Therefore the only issue left to determine in this appeal is who should be responsible for the costs of this appeal Because the settlement of the claim herein was not offered or made prior to the appeal of this claim filed in 2oog but apparently as a result of it I recommend dismissal of this appeal as moot with all costs herein to be paid by the Defendants If the Court agrees a judgment in accordance with this recommendation is attached S COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDATION In sum based on the administrative record and related pleadings filed thereafter for reasons stated I recommend dismissal of this lost property appeal in WNCo9 as moot 218 Additionally I recommend dismissal of any other requests for relief sought in the petition for additional damages pursuant to the prohibition in R 15 Finally I recommend S 11770 dismissal of this appeal with prejudice with all court costs to be paid by the Defendant Department Any costs previously deducted from Petitioner inmate banking account for s payment of costs herein must be reimbursed to that account within go days of any judgment signed upon receipt of proofprovided by Petitioner to the Department that such payment was made in this suit number Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of September 2011 in Baton Rouge La RACH L P MORGAN COMMISSIONER SE VIOIN A NINETEENTH JUDIC DISTRICT COURT 3 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
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.
