Elliot Montana VS Warden Burl Cain, Chad Menzina AWII

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2013 CA 1928 ELLIOT MONTANA VERSUS WARDEN BURL CAIN, CHAD MENZINA AWII U Judgment Rendered: x*::* x** MAY 0 2 2014 x; Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Docket Number C600044 Honorable Janice Clark, Judge Presiding k* a4k] t* kfk] FiFk Elliot Montana In Proper Person Angola, LA Terri L. Cannon Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Angola, LA Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections iF' X iF' IC J' X' IC J" iC' IC i C X iF BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH, AND CRAIN, JJ. WHIPPLE, C. J. Plaintiff, Elliot Montana, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" the Department") confined to the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review. Montana initiated a lost property claim (# LSP- 2010- 2207) under the Louisiana Corrections and Administrative Procedure Act, LSA-R.S. 15: 1177, et se c ., claiming that when he was transferred from the maximum security camp to the extended l ckdown camp within Angola, his personal property was not returned to him. Thus, he requested a return of the property. The warden denied the request, noting that Mr. Montana' s signature was on the personal property report form, which indicates that he received all of his property. Likewise, the Department denied the request, also noting that Montana' s signature was on the personal property storage documentation forms. Montana then filed a petition for judicial review. The Department answered, denying Montana' s allegations and submitting the administrative record into evidence. In Montana' s traverse to state' s answer," he alleged that the signature on the personal property inventory form was not his signature and that it was signed by someone else. On August 20, 2012, an order was signed by the district court, staying the matter for forty-five days to allow Montana an opportunity to obtain the statement of the prison employee who allegedly returned his property and witnessed his signature on the property inventory form. Accordingly, Montana interviewed prison employee Lt. Randall Stead, and the record was supplemented with the transcript of the interview. Thereafter, the Commissioner rendered a report in which he recommended that the district court affirm the Department' s decision to deny Montana' s lost 1The alleged ` lost property" consists of vazious clothing items, one cassette, and letters. 2 property claim. In accordance with the Commissioner' s Report, the district court rendered judgment on July 3, 2013, affirming the decision of the Department and dismissing Montana' s petition for judicial review. From this judgment, Montana appeals. In recommending that the petition be dismissed, the Commissioner stated the following in his report, which we adopt herein as our own and attach hereto as Exhibit A,": T]he petitioner' s signature on the portion of the inventory form indicating his property had been returned does appear significantly similar to his signature particular matter[,] elsewhere appearing in this record. In this this Commissioner finds that the Department could rely on the receipt on the inventory form to base the finding the petitioner received his property on June 11, 2010. The petitioner is unable to show the final administrative decision rendered in this matter should be disturbed on judicial review. After careful review, we likewise find no merit to Montana' s lost property claim. The record reveals that Montana was given the opportunity to question Lt. Stead, the prison employee who the property signed inventory form. Lt. Stead stated that while he did not have any personal recollection about Montana signing the form, the typical procedure is to bring the inmate the property and have the inmate sign for the property; if the inmate does not sign, then the seal around the property cannot be broken. Notably, Montana did not offer any evidence to rebut the statements of Lt. Stead regarding the procedures employed or to support the claim that his signature on the form was a fargery. CONCLUSION After a thorough review, we find the record supports the judgment of the district court, rendered in accordance with the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation of the Commissioner, which we adopt herein as our own. Thus, the July 3, 2013 judgment of the district court, dismissing Montana' s petition for 3 judicial review with prejudice, is hereby affirmed. assessed to plaintiff/appellant, Elliot Montana. AFFIRMED. 4 All costs of this appeal are ERHIBIT " A" LLIOT MONTANA SECTION: NO. 600- 044 D D. O. 0# 293682 19`' JUDICIAL DISTRIC" COURT T VS. PARISH OF LOUISIANA D AST BATON ROUG STATE OT LOUISIANA PARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAF TY 8i CORRECTIONS tL COMMISSION R' S 12 COMM NDATION za 3 """' 9... The petitioner filed the instant request for relief pursuant to R.S. 15: 1177 seeking judicial review of the fin l agency decisions rendered under Lost Property Claim No. LSP-2010- 2207. The petitioner contends he was placed in extended lockdown on May 12, 2010 and his property was not returned to him upon his release fi ¢ om lockdown. The Department filed the administrative record in this matter which contains an inventory form, that the Deparhnent contends, contains a receipt for t(ie retuin of flie petitioner' s property on June 11, 2010. The petitioner contends tl at his signatt re was forged on the inventory form uid tl at he never received his pro erty. ANALYSIS OF TH FACTS AND LAW The scope of fliis Cotut's review is limited by R.S. 15: 1177(A)(5)( 8), wluch states, in pertinent pazt, as follows: 5) The review shall be conducted by the Court widiout a jLUy azzd shall Ue confined to the record. T1ie review shall be limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the admiiustrative remedy request filed at the agency level. 9) The court may reverse or modify the decision oiily if substantial rights of flie appellaut have been prejudiced Uecause the admiiustrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: a. U. d. 00 m W In violation of constitutional or stahrtory provisions; I1i excess of the statutory audiority ofthe Agency; c. Made upon uiilawful procedme; d. Affected by otl er eiror of law; ArUih< or capricious or cl aracterized Uy azi abuse vy of discretion or clearly imwarranted exeicise of discretion; or e. f. Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the wl ole record." gd 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT In diis case, ciie Petitioner l as been denied a lost propeity claim and he is seelcing an ordex ¢to the Department to reimbtu-se lum for d e properry that he claims to have lost. At the hearing conducted in this matter die petitioner made a request to expand the administrative record by calling the corrections employee who returned his property and witnessed his signature. The Department objected and this Conmlissiouer' s predecessor maintained the objection based ou the finding that flie petitioiier should have sought, at the very lelst, a written statemeut from die officer who delivered his property. The Coimnissioner then found the petitioner had waited too late in these proceedings to seek the testimony of die officer whose name appears on the inventoiy form as the person wl o delivered the petitioner' s property. After the Commissioner made his recommendation The court rejected it and advised this Commissioner to allow the petitioner to question Uie officer who was re orted to have returned the property to him. A transcript of d e hearing proceedings, including the ruling Uy the prior Commissioner, regarding the petitionei' s request to expand flie administrative iecord, and tl e petitioner' s questioning of flie officer is included for this Cot rt' s review. This Commissiouer notes as the prior Comniissioner did, tl at the signah re on the inventory form indicating the return of the inventoried property items does somewhat match the sigi ature of the petitioner eisewhere iii these pleadings. The petitioner' s first name does appear to be very similaz to the other signatures, Uut the last naine is illegible. This Coinmissioner notes that it iYs often 1 difficult burden for an imnate to satisfy the burdei of proof required to obtain a reversal of a final administrative decision. Inmates' access to evidence azid information is often times restricted in a correctional enviromnent. In this matter the petitioner is required to sliow the finding Uy the Deparhnent that the petitioner signed for receipt of his property is ma iifestly en ¢oneous, arbitraiy or an abuse of discretion. This Commissioner fnds Yhat the petitioner' s sigiiature on the portion of the inventory form indicating l is property had been returned does appear significa ltly similaz- to his signature appearing elsewhere in this record. In this particular matter this Commissioner finds lliat die Departmesit could rely on the receipt o i tlie inventory form to base the finding the petitioner received his property on Jtuie 11, 2010. The petitioner is unable to show flie final administrative decision rendered in this matter should Ue disturbed on judicial review. a 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT Accordingly, it is ihe recominendation of this Commissioner diat the final agency decision rendered below sl ould Ue affirmed and this maYter disn issed with prejudice, at tl e petitioner' s cost. COMMISSIOPIER' S RECOMM NDATION Therefore, after a carefiil review of the adminisU ¢ative record, tl e oral u ¢ guments, and the law applicable, for reasons hereinabove stated, fnding that die law mandates the DepaztmenYs' decision herein, it is the recommendation of this Coimnissioner that the DepartmenYs decision to deny the petitioner' s lost j roperty claim be affirmed and that fl7is appeal be dismissed witli prejudice at die Petitioiier' s costs. Respectfillly reconunended, this 16°i day of May, 2013 at Baton Rouge, Louisia a. QUINTILLIS IC. LAR I2 NCE, COMMISSIONER, SECTION B NIN TE NTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 1.-013 2t- T-Y-C / LE OF COU}, I HER[ BY CERTIFY iHAT ON THIS OAY A COPY OF THE WRII7EN REl S9Nsr/-Jt B ivFEN. ORDER/ CO MI SIONFR' SR[ COMMENDATIO MAIIE DY iE' pq l { 1ffiElEN!'- 9 ALL PART([ S NOI It Ifb AS G AF- I EUTO: DONE A D SIC ED ON .`/ ( o uir C i EiaKOFCOU r 0 191b JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

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.