Demarco Hawkins VS Louisiana Department Public Safety & Corrections

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2013 CA 1309 DEMARCO HAWKINS VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPAR" I'MENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered: AY ` 20 4 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. 615, 673 Honorable Kay Bates, Judge Presiding Appellant/Pro Se Demarco Hawkins Allen Correctional Center Cottonport, Louisiana William Kline Attorneys far DefendanUAppellee, 7onathan R. Louisiana Department of Public Vining Safety and Corrections Baton Rouge, Louisiana BEFORE: i/, N Y PARRO, GUIDRY, AND DRAKE, JJ. CC%''C C-'"'` I/ 2 . DRAKE, J. Appellant, Demarco Hawkins, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( Department), housed at Allen Correctional Center ( Allen Correctional) in Cottonport, Louisiana, appeals a judgment of the district court that dismissed his petition for judicial review with Based on our review of the record, we affirm the district court' s prejudice. judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 25, 2012, Mr. Hawkins filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court ( 19th JDC) seeking review of Administrative Remedy Procedure ( ARP) No. ALG2011- 215. In ALG2011- 215, he claimed that a private contractor, GEO Group, Ina ( GEO), that managed Allen Correctional, illegally forfeited the good time that he had earned between January 17, 2006, and October 15, 2010. Mr. Hawkins dated ALG2011- 215 as " ongoing." On Apri126, 2011, Allen Correctional rejected the ARP filed by Hawkins. Allen Correctional noted that Department Regulation B- OS- 005 does not permit the ARP to be used for appeals of " disciplinary matters." See La. Admin. Code tit. 22, pt. I, § 325( I)( 1)( a)( ii)( i). Instead, Allen Correctional determined that the matter should b)( have been " addressed via the appeals process." After the rejection of his claim, Hawkins filed a petition for judicial review with the district court claiming that GEO denied his ARP and rejected his appeals. The Department answered the prisoner suit and claimed that the grievance of Hawkins was properly rejected. Hawkins filed a pleading entitled " Traverse to State['] s Answer," claiming that GEO, which manages Allen Correctional pursuant to La. R.S. 39: 1800. 1, violated La. R.S. 39: 1800. 5( 5) by the forfeiture of his good time. Louisiana Revised Statute 39: 1800. 5( 5) does not permit a correctional 2 facility to delegate to a private contractor of a prison the authority or responsibility for "[ g] ranting, denying, or revoking sentence credits." The 19th JDC Commissioner' ( Commissioner) issued a report pursuant to La. R. S. 15: 1177( A)(5) and ( 9), recommending denial of the relief sought by Hawkins and dismissal of his suit. The district court adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner after a de novo review of the record. It is from this judgment that Hawkins appeals. DISCUSSION Hawkins filed a petition for judicial review of an ARP in accordance with Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, La. R.S. 15: 1171, et seq. with the 19th IDC. The Department answered the petition for judicial review and claimed that a disciplinary matter cannot be filed as an ordinary administrative grievance pursuant to the ARP process. Louisiana Revised Statute 15: 1177( A)(9) sets forth the appropriate standard of review by the district court, which functions as an appellate court when reviewing the Department' s administrative decisions. A review is mandated to be conducted by the district court without a jury and must be confined to the record. La. R. S. 15: 1177( A)( 5). Specifically, tbe court may reverse or modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant violation have been prejudiced of constitutional or because the statutory administrative provisions, ( findings are: ( 1) in 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, ( 3) made upon unlawful procedure, ( 4) affected by other error of law, ( 5) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion, or The office of commissioner of the 19th JDC was created by La. R.S. 13: 711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings azising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. La. R.S. 13: 713( A). The commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, ar modify them. La. R. S. 13: 713( C)( 5); see Martinez v. Tanner, 11- 0692 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 9/ ll),79 So. 3d 1082, 1084 n.3, writ denied, 11- 2732 ( La. 7( 27/ 12), 93 So. 3d 59. 3 6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole recard. La. R.S. 15: ll77(A)(9); Lightfoot v. Stalder, 00- 1120 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 22/ O1), 808 So. 2d 710, 715- 16, writ denied, 01- 2295 ( La. 8/ 30/ 02), 823 So. 2d 957. On review of the district court' s judgment under La. R.S. 15: 1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings ar legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. McCoy v. Stalder, 99- 1747 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 22/ 00}, 770 So. 2d 447, 450- 51. At issue in the instant case is whether the 19th JDC erred in affirming the Department' s decision to reject the appeal of Hawkins for restaration of all the good time forfeited during disciplinary hearings at Allen Correctional between January 17, 2006, and October 15, 2010. Hawkins based his claim on the argument that La. RS. 39: 1800. 5( 5) prohibits private prison contractors from granting, denying or revoking" good time credits. See Singleton v. Wilkinson, 060637 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 14/ 07), 959 So. 2d 969. The Deparhnent rejected the manner in which Hawkins filed his appeal as an ARP rather than a direct disciplinary appeal pursuant to Department Regulation B- OS- 005. The Disciplinary Rules for Adult Offenders are contained in LAC Title 22: I: 341, et seq. Louisiana Administrative Code 341( G) 22: L ¢ requires a disciplinary proceeding to be brought before a disciplinary officer within a certain time An appeal of the disciplinary officer may only be brought to the frame. disciplinary board. LAC 22: I341( H)( 1)( a)( i). " The appeal from the disciplinary officer to the disciplinary board will constitute the final administrative remedy regarding the disciplinary decision." LAC 22: I341( I( 4 1)( a)( iv). If an inmate is dissatisfied with the final decision of the disciplinary board, he is entitled to appeal to the district court. La. R.S. 15: 1177. Hawkins relies upon Singleton, 959 So. 2d 969, claiming that the Department could not rely upon the decision to forfeit his good time, since there was no oversight of GEO' s decision. In Singleton, the inmate followed the proper procedure of appealing the Department' s decision to the disciplinary board. Hawkins has not followed the proper procedure. Instead of appealing his forfeiture of good time to the disciplinary board, he filed an ARP. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that each of the disciplinary decisions between January 17, 2006, and October 15, 2010, was appealed to the disciplinary board. There is not even an indication as to how many disciplinary decisions took place during this time frame. It appears that Hawkins filed an in globo claim as an ARP for all the forfeiture of his good time during the time frame mentioned above. Hawkins claimed in his ARP that the grievance he filed was not a disciplinary appeal, but, rather, a challenge to Department rules, regulations, policies, and/ or procedures." We agree with the Commissioner' s observation, which was adopted by the district court, that the matter filed by Hawkins was a disciplinary matter seeking to restore his good tirne. The restoration of good time is within the exclusive domain of the Department' s disciplinary proceedings. The Department has R. S. 15: 1171( B), promulgated administrative " rules," authorized by La. in LAC 22: I341, referred to as the Disciplinary Rules and Procedure for Adult Offenders. The Rules set forth a clear appellate process within a limited time frame to appeal an adverse disciplinary decision that results in the forfeiture Disciplinary of good Board. time. The final administrative decision is made by the LAC 22:I:341( I( 1)( a)( iv). After the Disciplinary Board makes a decision, an inmate may appeal to a district court. La. R.S. 15: 1177( A). 5 Therefore, Hawkins was required to follow the procedures for disciplinary matters set forth in LAC 22: I341. Furthermore, in order to appeal to the district court, a peririoner must e challenges the " aust the disciplinar} appellate process, even if the peritioner rules, regulations, policies, or statutes." La. RS. 15: 1171( B). The failure of an inmate to appeal each disciplinary action against him to the Disciplinary Board and then to the district court does not permit him to file an ARP for the same relief which should have been appealed to the Disciplinary Board. Due process was afforded Hawkins by the disciplinary appellate process that would have allowed the district court the opportunity to review each decision by the Department in every instance in which Hawkins lost good time. The district court' s decision, affirming the Department' s rejection of the claims of Hawkins, is not arbitrary, manifestly erroneous, or in violation of any of his rights. In addition to the fact that the Disciplinary Board has the exclusive right to review disciplinary decisions, a petitioner may not seek review of mare than one administrative decision in a single suit. Allowing an offender to request review of more than one adverse decision in the same petition would call into question timeliness issues and unnecessarily complicate the reviewing court' s role by having several records transmitted for review. This would allow a multitude of cross referencing issues, facts and actions, which would not allow for orderly disposition of the suit. Lightfoot v. Stalder, 97- 2626 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 98), 727 So. 2d 553, 555. The attempt by Hawkins to have multiple administrative decisions reviewed in a single appeal is not permitted. When Hawkins filed the ARP, he did not give the Disciplinary Board the opportunity to review the ruling of Allen Correctional. Therefore, the ARP was the incorrect procedure to review his forfeiture of good time. 6 CONCLU SION For the above reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err in affirming the Departrnent' s decision to reject the claims of Demarco Hawkins. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Demarco Hawkins. AFFIRMED. 7

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.