Eddie Gene Evans VS Louisiana Board of Parole, Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCLTIT 2412 CA 2053 EDDIE GENE EVANS VERSUS LOUISIAN BOARD OF PAROLE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES BUDDY CALDWELL DATE OFJUDGMENT f JUN 0 7 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NiJMBER 612 SECTION 23 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 652 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE WILLIAM A MORVANT JUDGE Eddie Gene Evans Portage WI Appellant Plaintiff In Proper Person William Kline Counsel for Defendants Appellees Baton Louisiana Board of Parole Louisiana Rouge Louisiana Attorney General James Buddy Caldwell BEFORE KiJFIN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ Disposition AFFIRMED KiJI3N J appellant Petitioner Eddie Gene Evans an inmate serving a sentence far armed robbery in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections appeals a district court screening judgment that dismissed without service his demands against the Louisiana Board of Parole and Pardons Parole Board and James Buddy Caldwell Attorney General of Louisiana without prejudice for failure to state a cause of action and lack ofjurisdiction We affirm or Appellant committed the offense of armed robbery with threat of force in Wisconsin while he was on parole for a priar Louisiana armed robbery conviction Because the Wisconsin conviction violated the conditions of his parole the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Board of Parole the Department placed a detainer with Wisconsin prison officials Subsequently appellant filed a petition styled as a for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Petition 19th Judicial District Court Numerous attachments were attached to and incorporated into the petition by reference Although the precise nature of s appellant claims is difficult to discern due to the rambling nature of the petition it appears he is either seeking to have the detainer placed by Louisiana corrections officials removed or complaining of the alleged revocation of his Louisiana parole or alternatively seeking credit on his Louisiana sentence for the jail time he is serving in Wisconsin Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 88A provides in pertinent part that ll The court shall review before docketing if feasible or in any event before service on the defendants a petition in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity On review the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the petition if the petition fails to state a caase of action or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted added See also La C art P B 927 La R 15 S 1178 D 2 Emphasis In considering whether a petition states a cause of action a court must accept all well facts in the petition as true The function of the exception pleaded of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts of the pleading Everything on Wheels Subaru Inc v Subaru South Inc 616 So 1234 1235 La 1993 2d Because it raises a question of law an appellate court reviews an exception of no cause of action de novo Louisiana State Bar Association u Carr and Associates Inc 08 La App lst Cir OS IS So3d 158 167 writ denied 2114 09 08 1627 09 La 10 21 So3d 292 09 30 Regardless of whether appellant is seeking to have the detainer removed ar complaining of the alleged revocation of his parole his petition fails to state a cause of action Despite appellant allegations that his parole was revoked a July s 12 2004 letter from the Department that is attached to the petition indicates no action will be taken to formally revoke appellant parole until he is returned to s the physical custody of the Department which has not happened Thus the status of appellant parole is unclear However we note that appellant has not alleged a s specific decision by the Louisiana Board of Parole revoking his parole In any event even if appellant parole actually has been revoked he has s raised no valid basis for challenging such revocation Louisiana Revised Statutes 10 574 15 provides that a parolee parole shall be revoked when a person on s parole commits an offense in another state that would be a felony if committed in Louisiana The offense appellant committed while on parole in Wisconsin armed robbery with threat of force clearly would constitute a felony if committed in Louisiana Compare La S 64 R 14 1 64 and Wis Stat 943 Moreover 2 32 appellant admitted he was convicted of this offense Therefore the Board of Parole is without discretion in this matter Under La R 15 appellant S 574 s 10 3 parole is subject to mandatory revocation due to his felony conviction in Wisconsin while he was on parole Lay u Louisiana Parole Board 98 La 0053 App lst Cir 4 741 So 80 87 writ denied 99 La 11 749 99 1 2d 1959 99 12 2d So 657 Similarly because the revocation of appellant parole is mandatory his s petition also sets forth no basis for removal ofthe Louisiana detainer Further the attachments to appellant petition include a cancellation from the s detainer Wisconsin Department of Corrections dated April 24 2012 reflecting that the detainer placed against appellant by the Louisiana DOC has been withdrawn Accordingly to the extent that appellant is seeking removal of the Louisiana detainer it appears his claims are meritless as well as moot Finally appellant claim that he is entitled to credit on the remainder of his s Louisiana sentence far the time served in Wisconsin raises a time computation issue Such complaints must initially be addressed administratively within the Deparhnent See La R 15 Williams u Creed 07 La App lst S 1171 B 0614 Cir 12 978 So 419 422 writ denied 08 La 10 18 So 07 21 2d 0433 09 2 3d ll L Thus district courts do not have original jurisdiction to consider such claims Additionally it appears this claim is premature since appellant has not yet completed his sentence in Wisconsin For the above reasons the judgment of the district court dismissing sclaims is affirmed All costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant appellant AFFIRMED 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.
