David W. Poydras VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1475 DAVID W POYDRAS VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS DATE OFJUDGMENT MAR 2 5 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NiJMBER 609 SECTION 22 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 720 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE TIMOTHY E KELLEY JUDGE David W Poydras In Person Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Proper Angola Louisiana David W Poydras William L Kline Counsel for Defendant Appellee Baton Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Rouge Louisiana BEFORE KC1 PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ IN Disposition AFFIRMED KIJHN J appellant Petitioner David W Poydras an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections the Department appeals the district s court dismissal of his suit without prejudice We affirm I The petitioner filed an administrative remedy procedure ARP with the Department requesting that he be referred for consideration for medical parole because he allegedly had been poisoned and had notreceived proper medicalcare After the denial of his ARP he filed a petition in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court captioned Application For Criminal Post Habeas Corpus in Conviction which he alleged he had been poisoned by a prison guard in March 2009 and that he has been unable to obtain proper medical treatment for his resulting illness He further complained of the Department refusal either to transfer him to an outside s hospital or refer him for consideration for medical parole He also contended that La R 15 unconstitutional as applied to him since it provides that the S 574 Cis 20 Department was the entity that shall identify those inmates who might be eligible for medical parole Finally the petitioner asserted that his custody has become unlawful as a result of the DepartmenYs refusal to act entitling him to immediate release from custody Subsequently the petitioner also filed a supplemental petition requesting that several individual defendants be referred for criminal prosecution due to their role in concealing the alleged poisoning On March 13 2012 the district court noting that no pauper order was attached to the petitioner petition rendered an order advising him that his suit s would be dismissed if he failed to either pay the filing fees or apply for pauper status 2 within thirty days On April 27 2012 the commissioner issued a recommendation that the suit be dismissed due to the petitioner failure to comply with the costs s order In making this recommendation the commissioner noted that this matter was civil rather than criminal in nature and fell within the scope of La R 15 S 1171 1178 the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure CARP since the peririoner did not raise any post claims regarding his criminal conviction conviction or sentence After considering the commissioner report and the petitioner traversal s s thereof the district court adopted the commissioner recommendation and s dismissed the petitioner claims without prejudice based on his failure to comply s with the court costs order Additionally the district court recommended that a s copy of the petitioner pleadings be forwarded to the district attorneys for West s Feliciana Parish and East Baton Rouge Parish The petitioner now appeals arguing that since his claims actually constitute apost habeas corpus criminal conviction the district court erred in treating this matter as a civil suit and dismissing it for failure to pay costs or timely file a pauper order After a thorough review of tne pleadings and the record we find no error in the judgment of the district court dismissing the petitioner suit Although the s petitioner labeled his pleadings as applications for post habeas relief conviction Louisiana courts look beyond the caption style and form of pleadings to determine from the substance of the pleadings the true nature of the proceeding Thus a The office of commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court was created by La R S 711 13 to heaz and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state inmates Owens x Stalder 06 La App lst Cir 6 965 So 1120 07 8 2d 886 888 n 6 Z The commissioner conclusion that the petitioner raised no post claims attacking s conviction his conviction or sentences in his original or supplemental pleadings is correct although the petitioner subsequently attempted to raise such claims for the first time in his traversal to the s commissioner report 3 i pleading is construed for what it really is not for what it is erroneously called Rochon v Young 08 La App lst Cir 2 6 So 890 892 writ 1349 09 13 3d 0745 denied 09 La 125 So3d 824 10 29 cert dismissed S U 130 Ct S 3325 176 L1216 2010 2d Ed In the instant matter the petitioner scomplaints concern the conditions of his confinement and the Department refusal to refer him for consideration for medical s parole On the basis of these complaints he alleges he is entitled to an immediate release However these complaints do not constitute a true request for criminal conviction post habeas relief since they do not attack the petitioner conviction or s sentence See La C art 924 Moreover in Louisiana parole is defined by P Cr 1 statute as an administrative device rather than as a criminal matter See La R S A 11 574 15 Bosworth u Whitley 627 So 629 631 La 1993 2d Based on our thorough rev of the record we find no error in the dismissal ew of petitioner ssuit without prejudice Therefore the judgment ofthe district court is affirmed Appeal costs are assessed against petitioner David W Poydras appellant AFFIRMED 3 Regarding the petitioner srequest that criminal proceedings be instituted against several named defendants for their alleged role in concealing the alleged poisoning we note that the district attorney has bxoad discretion in both the institution and handling of criminal prosecutions and may decide whom when and how to prosecute La Const art 5 B 26 La R 16 La S 1 B C P Cr art 61 State u Odom 07 La App lst Cir 7 993 So 663 668 Far this 0516 08 31 2d reason the district court recommended that a copy of the petitioner pleadings be forwarded to the s district attorneys for the pertinent parishes 4
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.
