Durwin L. Abbott VS James LeBlanc Secretary of The Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Warden Steve C. Radar & Warden Carson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA CQURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUTT N0 2012 CA 1476 DURWIN L ABBOTT VERSUS AMES LEBLANC SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFEfY CORRECTIONS WARDEN STEVE C RADAR WARDEN CARSON udgment p rendered MAR 2 5 2013 Appealed from the 19 Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court No 594 373 Honorable William Morvant Judge DURWIN L ABBOTT IN PROPER PERSON LA JACKSON APPELLANT PLAINTIFF JONATHAN R VINING ATTORNEY FOR BATON APPELLEE DEFENDANT LA ROUGE JAMES M LEBLANC BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD 7J PETTIGREW J Petitioner Durwin L Abbott an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals a judgment affirming s DPSC final agency decision rendere under Administrative Remedy Procedure ARP No DCI and dismissing the claims aileged in his petition for judicial review 342 2010 For the following reasons we affirm DISCUSSION Following a failed drug screen Abbott filed an ARP at the prison where he was incarcerated claiming that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment favoritism and discrimination as it regards DPSC drug and alcohol testing policy s Petitioner believed that medications he was taking at the time of a DPSC drug screen caused a false positive result and that his sample should have been sent to an outside lab for further testing According to the record petitioner medical records were reviewed to determine s if any of his medications would cross react with the testing strips It was determined that they would not His request was reviewed and denied at the first and second steps of the ARP Having exhausted his administrative remedies Abbott filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court The matter was then referred to a commissioner for review pursuant to La R 15 who recommended to the district S 1188 court judge that DPSC decision be affirmed and Abbott petition be dismissed with s s prejudice Abbott timely filed a traversal of that recommendation reiterating his arguments to the court On May 25 2012 a judgment was signed affirming DPSC s decision and dismissing Abbokt petition for judicial review with prejudice This appeal s followed 1 The offices of commissioner of the 19th Judicial District Court were created by La R 13 to hear and S 711 recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners La R 13 The district judge may accept reject or modify in whole or in part the findings or S 713 A recommendations made by the commissioner and also may receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the commissioner with instructions La R 13 S 713 5 C 2 In recommending that DPSC decision be affirmed the commissioner offered the s following findings In this matter the petltioner alleges the drug testing policy does not afford due process because resuits suspected of faise positive readings are not sent to an outside lab ar aff are not provided with a list of d rders medications that may cause faise positi drug screens e The record in this matter E a May 10 2010 memo from the ntains medical staff that indicates the petitioner did not take any medications that could cause a false positive result in this matter The memo further indicates that the issue of a false positive result in the petitioner drug s screen was forwarded to the manufacturer who responded that the s petitioner medications could not have caused a false positive result The record indicates that the Department checked with a list of inedications that were known to cause false positive results and that the petitioner s medications did not appear on the list prepared by the manufacturer of the testing materials The record supports the finding that the Department has adequate procedures in place to address the issue of prescription drug interaction with the testing materials utilized in the petitioner drug s The record in this matter does not support the petitioner s contention that the DepartmenYs drug testing procedure does not afford screens due process The petitioner has failed to show he is entitled to the relief sought in this matter After a thorough review of the record in consideration of Abbott arguments on s appeal and applying the relevant law and jurisprudence we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the district court in adepting as its own the commissioner s report We therefore affirm the May 25 2012 judgment of the district court and find that the district court reasons for judgment as set forth in the commissioner s s recommendation adequately explain the decisior All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against petition Durwin L Abbott r AFFIRMED 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.
