Samuel Hamilton VS Louisiana Department Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PLTBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIlZST CIRCLTIT NUMBER 2013 CA 1390 SAMUEL HAMILTON VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered: MA' 2 zQ' Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and far the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit number C611348 Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Presiding Samuel Hamilton Plaintiff/Appellant Louisiana State Pro Se Penitentiary Angola, LA Terri L. Cannon Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department Safety and Corrections BEFORE: PARRO, GUIDRY, AND DRAKE, JJ. of Public GUIDRY, J. Plaintiff-appellant, Samuel Hamilton, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( the Department), filed a petition for judicial review of a final agency decision in ARP No. LSP-2011- 2161 in accordance with the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act, La. R.S. 15: 1171, et sey. The Department excepted to the petition on the grounds that it was untimely under La. R.S. 15: 1177, having been filed over thirty days after his receipt of notice of the final agency decision. The district court' s Commissioner issued a comprehensive report detailing the administrative history of the request for administrative remedies, its underlying facts, its disposition, the applicable legal issues, and her finding and recommendation that the Departsnent' s exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction be sustained. Following its de novo review of the record, the district court adopted the Commissioner' s report and its reasons for judgment and dismissed plaintiffls petition for judicial review as untimely, with prejudice. l From our review of the record, we find no error in the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffls claims with prejudice. Plaintiff does not dispute that he received the final agency decision on December 19, 2011. Plaintiff did not file this petition for judicial review of the agency' s decision until February 10, 2012, which is well beyond the thirty-day period provided in La. R. S. 15: 1177 within which to seek judicial review. Because plaintiff failed to timely file his petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court pursuant to La. We note that plaintiff filed a traversal to the Commissionex' s xecommendation, asserting for the first time that he had timely filed a petition for judicial review on Januazy 13, 2012, and attached supporting documentation. However, the traversal was wntimely, having been filed more than 10 days after the transmittal of the copy of the Commissioner' s findings and recommendations. See La. R. S. 13: 713( C)( 3); see also Vallier v. LeBlanc, 11- 1880 ( La. App. lst Cir. 5/ 2/ 12) unpublisfied opinion) (whexein this court interpreted " transmittal" to mean the date on which the commissioner' s recommendarion is mailed to the plaintif. 2 R.S. 15: 1177, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his claim. Finding that the Commissioner' s report dated March 22, 2013, and the district court' s judgment adequately state our reasons for judgment, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We issue this summary opinion in accordance with Uniform Ru1es Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 2A( 1), ( 2), ( 5), ( 6), costs of this appeal are assessed to piaintiff, Samuel Hamilton. AFFIRMED. 3 and ( 8). All
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.
