John Poullard VS Louisiana Department Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TE t I SOF LOUISIANA C COUR OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1438 JOHN YUU LLARD VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND COI RECTIONS ent Judgn Rendered R 6 2013 APYEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN ANU FOR THE P OF EAST BATON ROUGE RCSH STATE OF LOUISIANA DOGKEZ NUIVIBER 99670 THE HONORABLE JANICE G CLARK JUDGE Jol1n Poullai d Appellant Plaintiff Angola Louisiana Pro Se erri 1 Lynn Cannon Attorney for Defendant Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Angola Louisiana Safety and Corrections FOR N B KUI PETIIGREW AND McDONALD JJ 11 McDONAI J Plaintiff John ullard Pc an te inn in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals a judgment of the district court affix DPSC final agericy determination that denied his request s for r einstatement of ood time credits Fo the following reasons we affirm Background Mt Poullard f led this appeal of ARP LSP seeking review an 3073 2010 accordance with La S R 1171 15 et seq In it Mr Poullard challenges the s DPSC authority to forfeit any earned good time credits between the year 2000 and 2010 He asserts that La R 15 was invalidated by Cao v Stalder S 571 4 0650 2004 La App 1 Cir 5 915 So 851 wherein this court held that OS 6 2d only earned good tirne credits could be forfeited in a disciplinary action Mr Poullard contends that tlle curipromulga penalty La R 15 does not ted S 571 4 expressly limit forfeiture of good time to earned good time only Mr Poullard contends that DPSC must repl the statute as amended to include the word omulgate earlled before the words good time before any good time can be forfeited as a disciplinary sanction therefore all prior fol including his forfeitures fro feitures n 000 to 2010 were null and void Discussion In 1998 this coul held in Rivera v State 98 La App 1 Cir t 0507 98 28 12 727 So C09 613 writ denied 99 La 3 740 So 617 2d 0289 99 26 2d I that since the DPSC failed to promulga the amended version of La R t S 4 4B 571 15 as reauired by La R 15 the DPSC was bound to the use S 571 4C of its prior publis versiotl Zed promulgated as amended to In include S 571 1999 La R 15 4was properly 4B an adjustment to the maximum amount of good time that could promulgation this be forfeited in statute disciplinary aaction has remained largely unchanged Since the 1999 This court has confirrned on at least two occasions that La R 15 S 571 4was properly published in 1999 In Cao v Stalder 9 S at 857 this court held that a strict 15 2d 858 uction constt of La R 15 mandates the conclusion that unless good time S 571 4 has been earned by an iilmate it cannot be forfeited herefore 1 forfeiture of ive ct prosp or future good time is riot authorized by the statute and the imposition of such a perlalty is excessive Mr Poullard asserts that this meant that the DPSC had to reproinulgate the ule to include the limiting language of earned good time before any good time could be forfzited as a disciplinary sanction and that all prioY forfeitures were null and void His reliailce on Cao is misplaced Cao did not invalidate La R 15 This court decision in Cao left the regulation S 571 4 s intact but inteipreted it in accordance with the legislative intent in La R S 4 571 15 Id See La R 15 4 A B all of which refer to earned good S 57 3 1 tinle as forf ited Conclusion Since the statute was properly in effect when Mr Poullard earned good s time credits were forfeited as a disci action we find no error in the DPSC linary s denial of 1 After a careful cons of the administrative record and ideration havirlg considered the statutory law and promulgated rule a for the pplicable reasons hereinabove stated we aff rm the district court s judgment Costs of this appeal dre assessed against the plaintiff John Poullard AFTIRMED The 1999 promulg increasing the forfeiture imit from 30 days to 180 days is found in an emergency rule in tion 25 Na p 15 effe Tanuary 4 1999 and the final rule change is found in the ctive the LXegi Vol a siar ster i oi cian i Loi Register Vol 25 No 2 p 357 effective February 20 1999 See Washington v Louisiana State Penitentiary 9 La App 1 Cir 6 740 So 761 765 131U 99 25 2d 766 and 5 n Vai v Day 2000 A Cir 12f 80 So 121 125 n La 2104 pp1 O1 8 2 2d 5 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.
