Andrea Hall VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, James LeBlanc
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LC UISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 CA 0053 1 ANDREA HALL VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered NOV G f 2013 Appealed from the 19 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 613 628 Honorable William A Morvant Judge Andrea Hall Angola Pro Se LA Plaintiff William L Kline Baton Rouge LA A PP ellant Andrea Hall Attorney far Appellee Defendant Louisiana Department of Corrections BEFORE WHIPPLE C WELCH AND CRAIN JJ J WELCH J Andrea Ha11 an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department ofPublic Corrections the Department and housed at the Louisiana State Safety Penitentiary appeals the dismissal c his petition for judicial review of a f disciplinary action for the failure to raise aright violation substantial We affirm On July 10 2012 Hall filed a perition seeking judicial review of a disciplinary decision in which he was found guilty of the offense of aggravated fighting and was sentenced to a custody change and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of 25 for medical expenses In the petition Hall asserted that the 00 Disciplinary Board Board erred in denying his request to withdraw the investigation report of the fighting incident from the records claiming that it was based on the uncorroborated statement of the other inmate involved in the fight and that there were no photographs of the items of evidence referred to therein Hall asked that the prison officials be ordered to submit photo eopies of the items of evidence and to infarm the Board how they obtained the items Secondly Hall urged that the Board erred in denying his motion for dismissal of the disciplinary report because the reporting officer did not allege that a weapon had been used or that he intentionally inflicted serious injuries upon the other inmate Finally Hall asserted that the Board erred in denying his motion to dismiss the disciplinary report because the allegations of the other inmate were unbelievable and any actions taken by Hall were done in self Hall asked that the disciplinary defense report and the investigative report be dismissed or in the alternative that the or matter be remanded far another hearing He also asked for reconsideration of the sentence imposed in the event that the Rule 11 aggravated fighting violation was dismissed because that rule violation had been combined with an aggravated wark offense of November 20ll 2 s Hall appeal of the Board decision was denied by the warden and the s Department In its written reasons for upholding the decision of the Board the Department found the disciplinary reports to provide convincing evidence of the violations charged and that Hall failed to provide any evidence to refute the charges or prove his claim of self It also observed that Hall was afforded defense a full hearing and was afforded due P rocess in both the hearin g and sentencing phases of the proceeding The Commissioner appointed by the district court conducted a screening of s Hall petition and found that it failed to raise aright violation and substanrial therefore failed to state a cognizable claim or cause of action for relie The Commissioner noted that the only penalty imposed was a custody change and that Hall had been afforded a hearing and an appeal of the ruling Given the fact that the penalty did not affect the length of Hall sentence or present any other drastic s departure from expected prison life the Commissioner found no substantial right violation that would permit a court to intervene and reverse the administrative decision Hall objected to the Commissioner recommendation asserting that the s Commissioner erroneously found that the only penalty imposed in this case was a change of custody because a penalty of restitution for the costs of inedical expenses had also been imposed Hall asserted that the imposition of the restitution award constituted a substantial rights violation because it places an undue burden on him that will take him years to resolve as he is indigent and earns only four cents an hour He also claimed that the prison officials violated his due process rights to present evidence when denying his motions and imposing punishment based on vague claims of aggravated fighting and totally unreliable evidence 3 Following a de novo consideration of the pleadings the district court adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner and dismissed Hall petition s with prejudice Hall filed an application for supervisory writs with this court which was denied by this court on November 5 2012 on the basis that the district s court screening judgment is a final appealable judgment Hall v Louisiana Department of Safety and Corrections 2012 La App I Cir 1668 unpublished 12 5 11 Thereafter Hall filed a motion for an appeal in the district court In his brief to this court Hall contends that the Commissioner findings are manifestly s erroneous because the record establishes that the disciplinary board also imposed on him the penalty of restitution costs far all medical expenses He also contends that the allegations of the reporting officer do not support a finding of guilt for violating Rule 11 the evidence against him was totally unreliable and the disciplinary court and prison officials violated his due process rights to present evidence Further he claims that the imposition of restitution for costs for all medical expenses placed an undue burden on him and constitutes the violation of a substantial right Pursuant to La R 15 a court is required to conduct an initial S 1178 screening review to determine if the petition for judicial review states a cognizable claim or if the petition on its face fails to state a cause of action Louisiana Revised Statue 15 sets forth the standard of review to be applied by the 9 A 1177 district court in reviewing an s inmate appeal of a disciplinary decision It provides that a court may reverse the disciplinary decision only if substantial rights of the appellant l been prejudiced because those findings are a in violation of ave constitutional ar statutory provisions b in excess of the statutory authority of the agency c made upon unlawful procedure d affected by other error of law e arbitrary or capricious or fl manifestly erroneous in view of the evidence 4 We have thoroughly reviewed Hall allegations and find that his petition s does not allege facts sufficient to support his claim that prison officials violated his right to due process abused their discretion exceeded their authority ar committed any other error of law in finding him guilty of aggravated fighting and imposing arestitution award for medical expenses Furthermore he has not 00 25 alleged facts that would support a findin that the prison officials decision was manifestly erroneous in view of the evidence Therefore we agree with the district s court conclusion that Hall failed to state a cognizable claim ar cause of action for relief that would authorize a court to reverse or modify the disciplinary determination under La R 15 S 1177 See Gallow v Stalder 2008 La 0944 App 1 Cir 12 writ denied 2009 La 11 22 unpublished 08 23 0365 09 25 3d So 173 Accordingly we affirm the screening judgment of the district court and issue this memorandum opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules of Appeal Courts Rule 2 Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant Andrea Hall B 1 16 AFFIRMED 5
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.
