Reginald Morrison VS Burl Cain, Warden, L.S.P.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PL BLICATION TATE S OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL IRST liIT F CIRC 2012 CA 11ti0 DMORRISON REGINAI VERSUS BLJRL CAIN WARDEN L P S Judgment Rendered FEB 1 5 2013 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish ofEast Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 607 957 Honorable William A Morvant Judge Presiding Reginald Morrison Plaintiff Appellant Louisiana State Prison In Proper Person Angola Louisiana illiam VKline Baton Rouge Counsel for DefendanUAppellee Louisiana Louisiana Department of Corrections r BEFORE 3IPPLE J W C McCLENDON AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ HIGGINBOTHAM J Reginald Morrison an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections the Department was convicted of violating Disciplinary Rules 1 contraband and 30 general prohibited behavior and W was sentenced to a quarters change to Camp J extended lockdown After austing ehis review before the Department Mr Morrison filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In a screening report submitted by the commissioner far the district court it was recommended that the court raise on its own motion and grant an exception of no cause of action dismissing Mr Morrison suit with prejudice prior to service without an s opportunity to amend and at his cost The commissioner also recommended that Mr Morrison be assessed a strike pursuant to LSA 15 for failing to state S R 1187 a cause of action or raise a cognizable claim Thereafter the district court issued a screening judgment in conformity with the recommendation of the commissioner The Due Process Clause does not protect every change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on a prisoner Giles v Cain 99 1201 La App 1 Cir 6 762 So 734 738 citing Sandin v Conner 515 00 23 2d S U 472 478 ll5 Ct S 2d Ed 2293 2297 132 L 418 1995 Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system Discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected parameters of the sentence imposed by a court of law Sandin 515 U at 485 115 S at 2301 Thus in order to invoke S Ct the protections of the Due Process Clause a prisoner must show an imposition of an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ardinary incidents of prison life Sandin 515 U at 484 115 S at 2300 S Ct 2 After a thorough review of the record we find no error in the analysis or conclusions of the district court As reco by thz connmissioner LSA nized S R 9 1177A 15 authorizes the district court to intervene in the decision of the Department only if Mr Morrison substantial righCs had heen violated and a s change in custody classification is not an atypic deprivation of a substantial al right See Parker v LeBlanc 02 La App 1 Cir 2 845 So 0399 03 14 2d445 446 Further a custody change to extended lockdown has been held not to prejudice a substantial right so as to state a cause of action for judicial review See Giles 762 So at 739 Accordingly we find Mr Morrison failed to establish 2d that his custody change to extended lockdown is an atypical or significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life and therefare failed to establish that his substantial rights were prejudiced Thus modification or reversal of the disciplinary action was not warranted under the law For the foregoing reasons Jve af the Nfarch 13 2012 judgment of the firm district court dismissing with prejudice Mr Morrison petition for judieial s review Costs of this appeal are assessed to R Morrison ginald AFFIRMED 1 The standard of review to be applied by the district court is set forth in LSA 15 S9 R 1177A which provides The court may reverse or modify the decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings inferences conclusions or decisions aze a In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions b In excess of the statutory authority of the agency c Made upon unlawful procedure d Affected by other enor of law e Arbitrary or capriciaus or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discration fj Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable probative and substantial evidence on the whole recoxd In the application of the rule where thz agency has the oppor to judge the credibility of witnesses by firsthand observation of unity demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not due regard shall be given to the agency determination of credibility issues s 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.
