Angela Jones VS The State of Louisiana through the Department of Corrections, Warden Johnnie Jones and Deacon Joseph Mamou

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL JVJ 0V 7Q FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2013 CA 0482 ANGELAJONES VERSUS THE STATE OF LOUISI THROUGH THE ANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WARDEN JOHNNIE JONES AND DEACON JOSEPH MAMOU Judgment Rendered November 1 2013 Appealed from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Iberville Louisiana Docket Number 63 662 Honorable Alvin Batiste Jr Judge Presiding t x tx Roy Maughan Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Angela Jones Lee J Ledet Counsel for Defendants Appellees State of Louisiana through the Department of Corrections and Martha Bowden Baton Rouge LA Warden Johnnie Jones Counsel for Defendant Appellee Joseph Mamou Arthur A Lemann IV New Orleans LA F iC Ak IC X IC E WHIPPLE GJ WELCH AND CRAIN JJ 16t Ir a r c WHIPPLE C J In this appeal an inmate at a state prison challenges the trial court s dismissal without prejudice of her ietztion for damages against the State a prison warden and the prison chaplain The trial coux determined that the inmate s perition alleged multiple separate torks thak certain of these tort claims were prescribed and that others wer subject tc dismissal for the ifailure to s imate aust e administrative remedies For Cne foll reasons we amend the wing judgment and as amended we affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROtiND On March 8 2004 Angela Jones incarcerated at the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women I St Gabriel Lfiied a petition for damages CdW in siana u in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court against the State of I ouisiana through the Department of Corrections the State and against Deacon Joseph Mamou the prison chaplain at LCIW 19 7DL suit IVIs Joa alle that she began es ed spiritual counseling vvith Deacon Niamou in 2UU0 became employed by him at his prison office in 2001 and was subjscted to his unwantad sexual advances beginning in early 2002 continuing until September or October 2003 In her petition Ms 7ones alleged Deacon MannQU conduct constituted a s continuing tort against her az that the State as his employer was viaariously liable for d damages he caused her She aiso alleged that LCIW officials knew Deacon Mamou had a history of illicit and illegal conduct with other inmates including the exploitation of females he was counseling and that the State was tiable for failing to protect those within its custody from unlawful sexual depredation As will be shown below the claims n this case have a lengthy and protxacted procedural history involving multiple forums Given the i ssues presented on appeal a recitati nof such is necessary to fully address the issues presented for review z While we do not consider assextions made in briefs in rendering a decisi non appeal the parties do not dispute that Deacon Mamou resi as prison chaplain before Ms Jones filed ned the 19 JDC suit 2 The State responded by filirg an exce of iznproper venue seeking to have the tion suit dismissed After filing the 19 7DC suit s Jones f1ed two additional suits based on the same ciaims asserted therein 1 in Apri12 she filed a cornplaint in federal 04 district court against the State Leacon Vdamou and Johnnie JQnes Warden of LCIW federal suit and 2 in September 2U04 she filed a petition for damages 9 against these same three defendants ir he Eight Judicial District Court under enth docket number 61 18 JDC suit 1 581 In August 2005 the fedaral district court dismissed the federal suit without prejudice for failure to e administrative remedies Thereafter in August or aust September of 2005 Ms Jones sui afor Administrative Remedy mitted Re quest Procedure ARP to LCIw offcials in whick she adopted the allegations of her federal complaint A LCIW ARP ssreen fficer denied her ARP as untimely ng Ms Jones then submitted request for Ste Two relief in th ARP pxocess However in Octc of 2005 the LCIW AR1 screening officer denied that request ber as well informing her that she could ic proceed to the second step because her t ARP was rejected at the first step due o un timeliness Meanwhile the S and iVarden 7ones tne Siat def filed ate ndants exceptions of lis pendens prescriptio ai z cause of action zn 18 JDC suit 1 o In December 2005 the trial 4ourt in hat suit signed Reasons for Judgment stating that Ms Jones September 27 2004 petition was prescribed on its face s and that the St defendants exceptions of rescription and no cause of action te were granted The appellate record shows Ms 7ones moved for and was granted an appeal from those Reasons for Judgment but the statu of that 5 appeal 3 does not appear in the appellate record In February 2006 after receiving the adverse rulings in her federal suit and the 18 JDC suit 1 Ms Jones filed a motion in the 19 JDC suit admitting that venue was improper and seeking to have the matter transferred to the Eighteenth Judicial District Court The Nineteenth Judicial District Court granted the motion and the suit was transferred to the Eighteenth Judicial District Court under docket number 63 18 JDC suit 21 In May 2006 Ms Jones amended her petition 662 in 18 7DC suit 2 alleging she had e all administrative procedures and austed adding Warden Jones as a defendant In early 2007 Deacon Mamou and the State defendants separately filed exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction lis pendens res judicata prescription and no cause of action in 18 JDC suit 2 In response in December 2007 Ms Jones again amended her petition in 18 JDC suit 2 to set forth more detailed allegations describing Deacon Mamou sconduct between March 2000 and September ar October 2003 After a hearing the Eighteenth Judicial District Court signed a judgment on December 11 20Q7 granting the State exception of no s cause of action based on Ms Jones failure to exhaust administrative remedies s and dismissing her suit with prejudice Ms Jones devolutively appealed from the adverse judgment An 3 appeal is taken from a judgment not the written reasons for judgment LSA P C 1918 art HuanQ v Louisiana State Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities 1999 2805 La App lCir 12 781 So 2d 1 6 Where there are written reasons for judgment 40 22 and no separate judgment there is no final judgment and appeal delays do not begin to run Amite Central Railroad Paoperties L v Town of Amite City 2002 La App l Cir C 1288 03 27 6 859 So 5 8 In any event in a Support of Defendants DOC and 2d Memorandum in Warden Jones Amended Declinato Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and ry Amended Peremptory Exceptions of Res Judicata and Prescription filed into the record on December 6 2011 the State defendants assert that Ms Jones appeal from 18 JDC suit 1 s judgmenY was dismissed Ms Jones appeal from the December 11 2407 judgment was originally lodged in this s court under docket No 20Q8 Following this court Order of Recusal and Incorporated 2498 s Written Reasons the Louisiana Supreme Court transfened the appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal by order dated July 9 2009 Supreme Court of Louisiana 4 In December 2009 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the December 11 2007 judgment finding w the record reveals that Ms Jones hile failed to eher administrative remedies we are of the opinion that dismissing aust her case under the theory of No Cause of Action far this reason was in error ela An Jones v The State of Louisiana throu the De of Corrections and h artment Deacon 7oseph Mamou 2009 p 4 App 4 Cir 12009 WL 0972 La 09 23 8689527 unpublished Noting that the December 11 2007 judgment was silent as to other exceptions filed by the appellees the Fourth Circuit remanded the matter to the trial court to consider and rule on the other exceptions Id After remarad in December 2011 the State defendants filad amended exceptions including an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction claiming the trial court was with subject matter jurisdiction to hear Ms Jones case out s because she had failed to properly e her administrative remedies in aust accordance with certain provisions of the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure CARP LSA 15 et se and the Prison Litigation Reform S R 117i c Act PLRA LSA 15 et se S R 1181 c Altematively the State defendants filed exceptions of res judicata and prescription contending Ms Jones claims were s barred by the xes judicata ffect ofYhe judgment rendered in 18 JDC suit 1 and were prescribed as had been judicially determzned in that same s In February it 2012 the trial court signed an order allowing Deacon Mamou to adopt the State defendants amended exceptions and supporting memorandum Ms Jones opposed the amended exceptions claiming she was not required to eadministrative remedies because at the time her cause of action arose aust the Louisiana Supreme Court had previously declared applicable provisions of CARP unconstitutional and the later legislation could not be applied to amended 5 deprive her of her vested right to sue She further argued that the dismissal of 18 7DC suit 1 had no res judicata effect on 18 7DC suit 2 because the merits of her claims were never determined in the first suit Lastly she argued her claims in 18 JDC suit 2 were not prescribed because they were filed on March 8 2004 within one year of Deacon Mamou last tortious act toward her which s occurred in September or October 2003 After a hearing on the amended exceptions the trial court signed a judgment on February 12 2012 denying the defendants exception of res iudicata granting their exception of prescription as to all alleged acts occurring more than one year prior to the date of filing suit on March 8 2004 based on its conclusion that the alleged acts giving rise to Ms Jones suit were multiple separate torts subject to s their own individual prescriptive periods granting their exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to Ms Jones remaining claims for her failure to s exhaust administrative remedies and dismissing her action without prejudice After a hearing the trial court denied Ms Jones subseqnently filed motion far s new trial Ms Jones then devolutively appealed to this court On appeal Ms Jones contends in multiple assignments of error that the trial court erred 1 in concluding that Deacon Mamou tortious conduct was s Ms S Jones also responded to the amended exceptions by amending her peiition to allege that LSA 15 and C were unconstitutional to the extent they apply to tort SB R1172 3 2 1 actions in that they divest the d c of the ociginal jurisdicrion granted by the istrict ourts Constitution in all civil matters and vest original jurisdiction in certain tort actions in the Department of Corrections o who administered the Administrative Remedy Procedure fficial The record does not indicate the resolution if any of this constitutional challenge nor has this issue been raised on appeaL The 6 February 12 2012 judgment dismissed Ms Jones action without prejudice but s does not specifically dismiss Ms Jones claim that LCIW officials knew of Deacon Mamou s s history of illicit and illegal conduct with othex inmates and the State was thus independently liable for failing to protect those within its custody frnm unlawful sexual depredation Generally silence in a trial court sjudgment as to any issue claim or demand placed before the court is deemed a rejection of the claim and the relief sought is presumed to be denied Schoolhouse Inc v Fanguv 2010 La App I Cir 6 69 So3d 658 664 Ms 2238 11 10 Jones has not assigned this as error on appeal The basis for recusal that existed when the first appeal was taken no longer existed at the time the second appeal was taken 6 i comprised of separate acts subject t separate prescriptive periods rather than characterizing his c as ator or as a taz subject to contra non onducC iuing conti t valentum and whicl was not subject t4 prescription until the tortious conduct i ceased and 2 in dismissing her suit for fa to exkaaust administrativa remedies lur a because there were no applica clmir remedies when hzr cause of le strative action accrued and b alternatively because sihe had in fact exhausted her administrative remedies PRESCRIPTION We first address the triai court onclusian that Deacon Mamou tortious s s conduct was comprised oi separate torts subject to separate prescriptive periods rather than characterizing his conduc as a ntinuing cc tort ur as a tort subject to contra non valentum an which was not subj to prescriptiox until the tortious ct conduct ceased Liberariv pxescriptian runs agai all mersons unfess an exception is ast established by legislation C LSA art 3467 The one liberative year prescription period for delictual ac7ions begins to run from the date the injury or damage is sustained C LSA art 3492 Prescription stat are strictly ates construed against prescription and i Tavo of the obligation sought to be a extinguished by it ly Wimber v Gatch 93 La 4i11 635 So 206 2361 94 2d 211 The continuing turt dractrine provides n exception to the general rule of prescription n Wh tortious conduct and resulting damages are of a continuing nature prescription does not begin until the conduct causing the damages is abated The conrinuing tort doctrine appl only wher continuous conduct causes ies continuing damages and it is the continuing nature of the alleged condue that has t the dual effect of rendering such conduct tortious and of delaying the commencement of prescription See Bustamento v Tucker 607 So 532 538 2d 539 La 1992 7 Similarly the judicially created doctrine of contra non valentum is an exception to the genezai rule of pr and is based an the civilian concept n scripzir that prescription does net run against a party wvho is unable to act Wimberly 635 2d So at 211 Carter v Hay 2004 l S 1261 1268 OOd 0646 i9i05 842 2d a There are four categories where contra ron vcalentum i appIied to suspend the running of prescription 1 where rhere was sor legal cause which prevented the e courts or their o from taking cognizance of or actimg an rhe plaintiff s action ficers 2 where there wa some condition cc with the contract or connected with led up the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing c acting 3 where the r debtor himself has dQne sc act ezfect to prevent the creditor from availing me ally himself of his cause of aciion and 4 where the c of action is not known or ause reasonably knowable by the plaintif fen thou hihis ignorance is not induced by the defendant Carter 892 So at 1268 ci Plaquemines Farish Commission 2d ti Council v Delta Development l 1nc 502 So 1034 1054 La ompany 2d 55 1987 Without specifically labeling her cause of action 1s Yones characterizes Deacon s Mamou acts as constitutirg a tork continuing The principles underlying the continuie tdoctrl are som of the same that anderlie the gtoa ne third category of contra raon valentur 8 whiih applies when the defendant engages in conduct that prevents the plainti from availing himself of judicial remedies f tais Carter 892 So at fl 269 2d That is althau the plaintiff s cause of action has accrued he is prevented from enforcing it by some reason xternal to his own will Far 8 example the continuing nature of a deiendanYs a has been used to saspend the ts rwuiing of prescription in medical malpractice cases under the cantinuing treatment or continuing relationship rule Carter 892 So at 1273 has been xecognized in legal 2d malpractice cases under the cantinuing xepresentaYion rule Jenkins v Starns 20b 1 La 1170 12 24 1 85 So 612 615 and has been appiied in employment discrimanation cases undex the 3d continuing violatians analysis Alcorn e itv f Baton Rou 20Q2 La App 1 Cir e 0952 04 30 12 898 So 2d 385 38 writ denied 2005 La 4 899 So 2d 12 389 0255 OS 8 d An in the contex of an intentional case based on sexual hazassment distress emotional of infliction the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the aIIeged pattern of cumulative and continuous conduct in that case was analogous to the continuing trespass or nuisance situations found in continuing Yort cases 5ee Bustamento 607 So at 538 2d 539 8 Wimberly 635 So at 211 Doe v Doe 95 La App 1 Cir 10 671 2d 0006 95 6 2d So 466 470 writ denied 95 La 1 667 So 523 This third 2671 96 12 2d category of contra non valen has been held to encompass situations where an tum innocent plaintiff has been lulled into a course of inaction in the enforcement of his right by reason of some concealmenY or fraudulent conduct by the defendant or because of his failure to perform some legal duty whereby the plaintiff has been kept in ignorance of his rights arter 892 So at 1269 citing Gump v Sabine 2d River Authoritv 98 La 6737 So 720 730 2326 99 29 2d According to Ms Jones the allegations of her amended petition show Deacon Mamou improperly used his position as her spiritual advisor and boss to gain her trust to the extent that he controlled her moods feelings thought sand actions Ms Jones essentially argues that through this overwhelming imbalance of power authority and control Deacon Mamou prevented her from availing herself of her cause of action and that his continuing tortious conduct caused a cumulation of damages that transformed his individual seductions into one actionable tort She also contends her situation is analogous to cases where contra non valenturn has been applied to toll prescription because a special relationship existed between the piaintiff and the defendant such that the continuing relationship prevented the ptaintiff from asserting his cause af action Ordinarily the party pleading prescription bears the burden of proving the claim has prescribed In re Medical Review Panel for Claim of Moses 2000 2643 La 5 788 So 1173 1177 Ol 25 2d Where as here the plaintiff petition s alleges a continuous course of conduet that clid not cease to e until within the st year preceding the filing of the suit the plaintifPs action is not prescribed on the face of the petition hence the defendant maintains the burden of establishing the facts necessary to sustain the plea of prescription See Bustamento 607 So at 2d 542 At the trial of an exception of prescription evidence may be introduced to 9 support ar controvert the defense of prescription if its grounds do not appear from the petition P C LSA art 931 e Generally in the absence of evidence the objection of prescription must be decided upon the facts alleged in the petition and all allegations therein are accepted as true Kirby v Field 2004 La App 1 1898 Cir 9923 So 131 135 wxit denied 2005 La 3 925 So OS 23 2d 2467 06 24 2d 1230 In this case the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and the parties introduced documentary evidence consisting of pleadings rulings and other documents from the suit records in the 19 JDC suit the federal suit and the 18 JDC suits including Ms Jones ARPs and the LCIW responses to same s s However the parties appear to agree and the recor retiects that the trial court decided the exception of prescrzption on the facts alleged in Ms Joz petition s es thus those allegations are to be accepted as true See Donley v Hudson Salva se 1315 LLC 2010 La l Cir 12 10 22 So 2d 2010 WL 5480438 2 unpublished Accordingly we now turn to the tacival allegations of Ms Jones s petition In her amended petition Ms Jones basically alleges that in March 2000 she began spiritual counseling with Deacan Mamou and over the next year Deacon Mamou gained her total confidence and trust to the point that he controlled her moods feelings thoughts and actions On Deacon Mamou advice Ms Jones s became involved in activities directed and supervised by him including out of prison trips and religious programs In 20Q1 Deacon Mamou arranged for Ms Jones to work in his prison office which increased her confidence and trust in him and his control and power over her In January 2002 Deacon Mamou began taking advantage of his power and control over her by talking to her in a sexual manner about personal feelings and by groping or touching her breast and other parts of her body Although this conduct stressed Ms Jones Deacon Mamou assured her that what he was doing would help her and everything would be ok 10 In late January or February 2002 Deacon Mamou coerced Ms Jones into exposing herself to him while he gratified himself again telling her this would help her In March 2002 Deacon Mamou tortiously coerced Ms lones into an oral sexual relationship by telling her in wards to the effect that it would be good for her According to Ms Jones petition this tortious conduct which s began in January 2002 continued and shortly thereafter Deacon Mamou coerced her into having sexuai relations with him in his prison office and other places at various times in the prison The continuous tortious acts occurred in January February Marck and April 2002 and continued until September or October 2003 until Deacon Mamou continuing sexual demands increased Ms s s Jones stresses to the point that she could not sleep ar function as a person and she withdrew from all activities including attending religious services Ms Jones alleged that when she attempted to end the relaYionship Deacon Mamou threatened her told her no one would believe her and that he would cut her off from all outside prison activities if she did not go along with what wanted ne Whether analyzed under the rubric of the continuing tort doctrine or the analogous doctrine of contra non valentum when tortious conduct and resulting damages continue over a period of time Louisiana courts have held in certain circumstances that prescription does not begin or run until the conduct causing the damages has abated See South Central Beli Telephone Com v Texaco Inc any 418 So 531 533 La 1982 Typically courts have found torts to be continuous 2d in nature where each individual act would not necessarily give rise to a cause of action rather it is the cumulative effect of regularly occurring or continuous actions that results in successive damages om day to day See Hunter v Tensas Nursin H 32 La App 2 Cir 10 743 So 839 842 writ ome 217 99 27 2d denied 99 La 2 754 So 228 The principle behind this equitable 3334 00 4 2d doctrine is that it protects a plaintiff from acts which by themselves may not be 11 unlawful or sufficient to alert the plaintiff that his rights h been violated but ve instead require a cumulative process to becom eactionable See Kir v Phelps Dunbar L 98 La 6 743 So 181 192 Knoll J concurring in P 18Q5 99 4 2d part dissentirzg in part also see Brown v Vauehn 5 So 63 65 I App l 9 2d a Cir 1991 In a hostile zvork erivircr ase each incident f harassment was of ment insufficient severity to separately comprise an independent claim for harassment but taken together could be of s s and pervasiveness to establish ufficient verity such a claim In the conte of an action for intentianai infliction of emotional distress resulting from sexual harassment the Louisiana Supa Courk has explained that eme when the acts or conduct are continuous ora an almost daily basis by the same actor of the same nature and the conduct beconnes tortious and actionable because of its conXinuous cumulative synexgistic nature then pxeGCription does not commence unril the last act occuxs oc the conduci is abated Bustamento 607 2d So at 542 also see Alcom v Citv of Baxor Rou 2002 La App 1 Cir e 0952 04 30 12 898 So 385 390 writ de 2QU5 La 4i8 899 So 12 2d ied 2S5 OS 2d hostile work environment and intentianal inflic af emotionai distress claims ivn not prescribed under violatzons analysis On thE other hand when a defendant cond consists of separate and s ct distinct acts with particulax damagas fla from each occurrenc even though ving the acts are similar in nature Louisia courts have not lways found a pattern of la conduct constituting a continuing tortious acx See Woods v St Charles Parish School Board 01 La pp 5 Ciro 6 790 So 696 702 writ denied 162 O1 27 2d La O1 2220 16 2001 11 802 S 6 also s Hunter 743 So at 842 For 2d 9 e 2d example in a case where dentist sexually abused a patient on nurrferous occasions over seve years but the acts did not occur daily or on any other al regular basis this court found each act was separate and distinct noting that 12 damages from sporad and interrxiattent acts c sexual abuse arise independently c f from each separate act of abusG and are not successxve damages resulting from a continuing tort Doe 671 So at 469 aiso see Fontaine v Roman Catholic 2d 470 Church of Archdiocese of Ne Orleans 625 So 54 552 La App 4 Cir 2d 1993 writ denied 93 La l 630 So 787 Ira an action by a 2719 941 28 2d mother alleging that a frst grade teach continuously nistreated haxassed and er physically abused her son ovex the course of a y the Fiftfi Circuit refused to aa characterize the s teacher conduct continuing tort be the alleged ause as incidents consisted of discrete separate eve each of which vas immediately 4s knowable to the mother and wlaich did not create a patte of conduct that d elevate the individual events intc a tort gr than its parts Woods 790 ater 2d So at 702 In an action for negligent care agalnst a mursing hom the Second e Circuit affinmed the dismissal af s of niece claims as prescribed based on veral s its determination that the descxi incidents crf negiectful are of her aunt were ed although similar in r clearly sep ana distinct with particul damages ature ate r flowing from each individaal occurrenc Hunter 743 So at 842 i in an d nd action for ssault and ba2tery whe ihe defendanr separaCe and distinct acts d s against his girlfriend ga rise to immedia apparent damag this court e ly es found that prescription ra separately frc the siate of each act oft abuse Lau m hlin v Breaux 515 So 480 482 La t 1 ir 19 2d 83 p l Based on the facts Ms Jones alleges i her amended petition and n light of a the above jurispr rules definiag the scope of the continuing tort and adential contra non valentum doctrines we conclude the trial court correctly found that the alleged acts giving rise to ihis suit are multiple separate torts subject to their own individual prescriptive periods The specifically alleged separate and distinct acts by Deacon Mamou consisted of groping or touching Ms Jo s es breast and other parts of her body in January 2002 coercing her in exposing 4o 13 herself to him while he gratified himself in January or early February 2002 coercing her into an oral sexual relationship in March 2002 and coercing her into having sexual relations with him in his prison office and other places at various times in the prison beginning shortly after 7anuary 2002 and apparently ending in September or October 2003 For prescription purposes if damages are immediately apparent to the victim prescription begins to run from the date the injury is inflicted See LSA C art 3492 Carter 892 So at 1267 and Clark v Wilcox 2004 La 2d 2254 App l Cir 12 928 So 104 112 writ denied 2006 La 6 OS 22 2d 0185 06 26 929 So 1252 2d As set forth in Ms Jones petition each coerced sexual act s described above beginning in January 2002 immediately produced particular damages flowing from each occurrence that were unlawful and immediately apparent See Lau 515 So at 482 Fontaine 625 So at 552 Sexual hlin 2d 83 2d abuse suffered by the victim resulted in immediately apparent damages at the time the abuse occurred and those damages were not dependent on a cumulation of events State ex rel Div of Admin Office of Risk Management v National Union Fire Insurance Campany of Louisiana 2007 La App 1 Cir 2 1134 08 8 984 So 91 95 writ denied 2008 La 4 9 So 370 In order 2d 0548 08 25 8 2d for alleged negligent acts to be the basis of a separate torc the complained of conduct must consist of separate and distinct acts ach of which gives rise to immediately apparent damages Gertainly each coerced sexual encounter was sufficient to trigger Ms Jones awareness that her rights had i violated by s een Deacon Mamou and that she should act to protect those rights See Berrv v Board of Supervisors ofL 715 F 971 981 5 Cir 1983 U S 2d Unlike the sexually harassing conduct at issue in Bustamento or the cumulative acts at issue in Brown or Alcorn Deacon Mamou tortious acts did not s require a cumulative process to become actionable nor did his conduct become 14 tortious and actionabie because of its continuous cumulative synergistic nature Rather each of Deacon Mamou coerced sexual acts gave rise to immediately s apparent damages that were immediately knowable to Ms Jones similar to the acts at issue in R Fontaine and Laughlin Ms Jones essentially argues her oods damages were not immediately apparent to her in that Deacon Mamou prevented her from availing herself of her cause of action due to his overwhelming imbalance of power authority and control over her Nonetheless we note that however exploitive Deacon Mamou power may have been Ms Jones was an s adult who was admittedly stressed the first time Deacon Mamou tortiously touched her and who reasonably should have been able te ascertain the detrimental consequences of each coerced sexual act from their inception in January 2002 until they ended in September or October of 2Q03 Accard Senn v Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State UnivarsitApricultural and Mechanical Colle 599 28 La App 2 Cir 8 679 So 575 580 writ denied 96 96 21 2d 81 2344 La 10 681 So 2d 379 Wadsworth v t 96 25 I3C Insurance Com 98 any 0486 La App 4 Cir 12 732 So 56 60 writ denied 99 La 4 98 9 2d 0453 99 1 742 So 558 2d Nor do we accept Ms Jones argument that contra nQn valentum should be s applied to suspend prescription in this case because there was a special relationship between her and Deacon Mamou As explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court when a special relationship such as physician or attorney patient client exists between the parties the continuation of the special relationship offers the possibility of correcting any injury and thus may postpone the running of prescription In re Medical Review Panel for Claim of Moses 788 So at 1180 2d citin 54 C Limitations S J of Actions 177 1987 Further the continued Louisiana 9 courts have noted that the tolling of prescription thaY arises out the continuation of a relationship is based on the third categoxy of contra non valentum special Carter 892 So at 1269 2d 15 professional relationship may result in a suspension of prescription if the continuing relationship is likely to hinder the patienYs inclination to sue thus tolling prescription until the relationship terminates See Tavlor v Giddens 618 2d So 834 843 La 1993 In this case the allegations of Ms Jones amended petition indicate that s she and Deacon Mamou had a spiritual advisor relationship and an advisee employee employer xelationship both of which Deacon Mamou allegedly used to sexually exploit Ms Jones Even accepting thes factual allegations as true we are unable to find that Ms Jones has adequately pled material Facts that would merit application of the special relationship version of the contra non valentum rule See Thomas v State Employees Group Benefits Pro 2005 La App lst am 0392 Cir 3 934 So 753 758 Only properly pleaded material allegations of 06 24 2d fact as opposed to allegations deficient in material detail conclusory factual allegations or allegations of law must be accepted as true In sum we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that Deacon s Mamou tortious conduct wa comprised of separate and distinct torts with particular immediately apparent damages flowing from each occurrence Ms Jones cannot rely on the continuing tort ar contra non valentum doctrines including that based on any special relationship to suspend the running of prescription under he facts she has alleged herein Ms Jones assignments of s error regarding the Yssue of prescription are without merit SUBJECT MATTER JtiRISDICTION AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES In her remaining assignments of error Ms Jones contends the trial court erred in dismissing her suit for failure to e administrative remedies because aust 1 there were no applicable administrative remedies when her cause of action arose and 2 alternatively that she had in fact e her administrative austed 16 remedizs According ta Ms dor er cat oT action arose in January 2002 es se when Deacon Maznou iirst aileged tortious act occurred the Louisiana s Supreme Court had previously declared appiicahle e provisaons of CARP austio unconstitutional in 2001 and the later yersi of CARP could not be amended n applied to d h of a vested right prive r In Pope v State 99 La 6 792 S 713 721 the Louisiana 2559 fJl 29 Supreme Court hzld that certain provisions of CA1 were unconstitutional to the P extent that thev divested the district courfs of original jurisdiction ov rtort actions filed by inmates against the Deparhaient of P Safety and Corrections and its ablic employees Subsequent ta Pot the Legis amended ortic of CARP by e lature ns 2002 La Acts 1 st rdinary Extra Session N 89 2 effective April 18 2002 changing the applicable procedure by ullowing tLhe fiiin oz an original civil action in district court after the e of adrninistrative remedies haustion See Dickens v Louisiana Conrectional Institute for Wamen 20 i La p i Cir 9 0176 11 14 77 So 7Q 73 n Walker v A 2009 La A s Cir 10 3d i purao 0 21 09 23 29 So 575 577 tdenied 20 La 3151 28 So 1010 However 3ci 2 Oj 3d in Cheron v LCS Carrections Services Ine 2U04 La 1 891 So 0703 2d 1250 1259 he Suprez Coark held t1 the arrdended version of CARP could not e aE be applied retroactively to a case ia uhich the claimant woulc be divested of vested rights Accard Dailev v ravisa 2004 La 1 892 Sa2d 17 21 0744 o5 19 A right to assert a cause c action is a property right and under f vested Louisiana law a cause of action accn when the piias a to sue s intifr right e iwhen there is fault causation and damages See M Farms Ltd v Exxon J Mobi1 Corporat 2007 La 711 998 So 16 33 Lee v Citv of on 2371 08 2d 34 Shreveport 46 La App 2 Cir 3 1 5 So 601 605 wrlt denied 146 2 3d 0607 2011 11 a 29 L 4 62 So3d 114 In our above discussion r garding prescription we found the trial court correctly determined tha Deacon Mamou s 17 tortious conduct vas conaprised of separate and distinct torts Each of these separate torts gave rise to a separate cause of ction see Lau l 515 So at n i 2d 482 and each cause of action accrued when Ms 3ones had the right to sue when there was fault causation an daniages see ii Farms Ltd 998 So at d J I 2d 34 Becsuse eack of Deacon Marr a cnerced toz acts gave rise to s eu ou Ie a tio immediately apparent that were innrnediaYely knowable to iVls Jones damages she had the right to sue for each act as it occurred Thus s tes those of Deacon s Mamou acts ocaurring bEfore April 18 2002 the effective date of the amended version of CARP Ms Jones claims are prescribed because she did not assert her s cause of action for eaah act wit one year o ir occurre r her claims hin vvhen rid with respect to Deacon Mamou Acts qcc on e after April 18 2002 the s zrring r amended version of Cr effective Apr lts 2002 and as explained below 1RP l required eof adrninistrative remedies prior to filing su cliaustion t PursuanC to the amend ve of CARP a prisoner is xequired to initiate d rsion administrative rennedies for a delictual actic for injzu or damag wzthin ninety n s days from the day the injury ar damage is sustained See LSA S R 1 B 1172 15 If a prisc fails to rimelv initiate or purstze his administrative nex remedy the delictual claim is consid abandc and any ubsequent suit reci ned asserting such a claim shallt dismissed wiY prejudi LSA 15 be ce 5 1172 C Once an administrative decision regarding a delictua actio is rendered the prisoner tlien has tkie ri tto file his claim s an original civil action in the appropriate district court LSA S i 177 see Dickens 77 So at 73 n 5l 3d l Accordingly when a prisoner fails to e available administrative remedies aust Section 10 325 of Title 22 Part I of xhe IAdministrativ Code LAC outlines the ouisiana rules and procedures to be followed in formally addressing inmate connplair in adult ts institutions in Louisiana As of April 20 2Q02 the LAC required ininates ko use he procedure set forth therein the two Administrative Remedy Procedure ARkl before they cuuld step oceed p with a suit in federal ox state court LAC 22 2002 Dickens 7I So3d at 74 A 325 I The two ARP applies o an inmate complaints of personal injury LAC 22 step s 325 i 18 the district court and the appellate cqurt lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim See Dickens 77 So at 75 Walker 29 So3d at 577 3d 76 The record clearly indicates Ms Jones failed to timely e her aust administrative remedies as to claims based on any of Deacon Mamou tortious s acts occurring on or after April 18 2002 LJnder LSA 15 B she was S R ll72 1 required to initiate administrative remedies within ninety days from the day any injury or damage was sustained Her ARP was not signed until August 29 2005 and not received by LCIW officials until eptember 29 2005 R21 28 133 well over ninery days after any alleged post April 18 2002 injuries and damages were sustained Further on September 29 2005 an LCIW ARP screening officer specifically exarnined and rejected lvls Jones ARP as untimely Ms Jones then s submitted a request to go to Step Two of the ARP process By notice dated October 8 2005 the LCIW ARP screening officer denied that request as well informing Ms Jones that she could not proceed to the second step because her ARP was rejected at the first step due to untimeliness Tht because the record s demonstrates that Ms Jones failed to timely e available administrative iaust remedies far all acts arising on or after April 18 2002 the district court and this court lack subiect nnatter jurisdiction to review these claims See Dickens 77 So3d at 75 Walker 29 So at 577 Ms Jones assig of error 76 3d s unents Ms IJones did not file her ARP until after the federal district court dismissed her federal suit Notably in the Magistrate Judge Report signed August 9 2005 the federal magistrate s noted P candidly admitted that she has never filed a grievance pursuant to laintiffhas formal the LCIW administrative review procedures Aneela Jones v The State of Louisiana Throu s h The Departmenfof Corrections Wazden Johnnie W Jones And Deacon Josenh Mamou No 04 DLD RET D 250 M La 2005 Cf i Jackson v State 2011 La App 1 Cir 3 92 So 391 395 397 1716 12 23 3d wherein this court vacated a judgment and dismissed an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the record was devoid of any evidence that the plaintiffs initiated complied with or exhausted any statutorily administrative remedy procedure prior to required filing suit in the district court Thereafter the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the plaintiff s writ application and remanded the suit to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the availability of an administrative remedy pursuant to LSA 15 et se Jackson v State S R 1171 c 0912 2012 La 690 So 1069 12 22 3d 1070 19 regarding this issue are without merit In reviewing the February 12 2012 judgment we note that the trial court determined 1 all alleged acts occurcing more than one year prior to the date of filing suit on March 2 2004 were prescribed and 2 it had no subject xnatter jurisdiction as to Ms Jones remaining claims because she failed to e s aust administrative remedies However we conclude that April 18 2002 the effective date of CARP as amended is the relevant date for detenmining which of Ms s Jones claims are prescribed and which were subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Therefore we will amend the judgment accordingly CONCLUSION For the above reasons the trial court February 12 2012 judgment is s amended to grant the defendants exceptions of prescription as to all alleged acts occurring prior to April 18 2002 the effective date of the amended version of CARP and to dismiss those claims with prejudice and to grant the defendants exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to Ms Jones remaining tort s claims for failure to exhaust administrative ramedies and to dismiss those claims without prejudice The judgment as amended is affinmed No costs are assessed in this pauper suit AMENDED AND AS AMENDED AFFIRMED As L3 noted in footnote four Ms Jones amended her below to allege that certain petition provisions of the amended version of CARP were unconstitutional Because the record does not indicate the resolution if any ofthis constitutional challenge we dismiss Ms Jones sremaining tort claims without prejudice In the event her constitutional claim is ultimately decided Ms Jones will then have no remaining claims in this action The 14 trial court signed an order on February 5 2012 allowing Ms Jones to pursue her appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to LSA art 5181 P C 20

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.