Coindell Bryant VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2016 CA 0136 COINDELL BRYANT VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered: ' OCT 3 1 2016 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. C637370 The Honorable Donald R. Johnson, Judge Presiding Coindell Bryant Plaintiff/Appellant Cottonport, Louisiana Pro Se William L. Kline Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Baton Rouge, Louisiana James Leblanc and Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ. THERIOT,J. The appellant, Coindell Bryant, appeals the final judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court that dismissed his petition for judicial review without prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 25, 2015, Bryant, an inmate of appellee, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( LDPSC), filed a petition for judicial review in the 19th JDC. Bryant claimed that LDPSC denied him participation in the work release program although he was eligible. Bryant also claimed that he had filed an administrative remedy procedure request ARP) with the facility in which he was housed and the claim was denied. The ARP is not attached to the petition for judicial review and is not included in this record. 1 The district court issued an order for compliance with its local rules on March 18, 2015, giving Bryant fifteen days from issuance to provide written proof of exhaustion of the administrative remedy procedures. Bryant failed to do so, and on May 13, 2015 the district court commissioner recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the failure to exhaust all remedies pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1172(C)2 and La. R.S. 15:1176. 3 The district court adopted the commissioner' s report as reasons for its judgment and dismissed the petition without prejudice on June 23, 2015. 1 Bryant has included in his brief an ARP designated with the same number as the ARP described in the petition for judicial review; however, an appellate court may not consider evidence which is outside of the record. See La. C.C.P. art. 2164; Tranum v. Hebert, 581 So.2d 1023, 1026 ( La. App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 584 So.2d 1169 (La. 1991). 2" If at the time the petition is filed the administrative remedy process is ongoing but has not yet been completed, the suit shall be dismissed without prejudice." La. R.S. 15: l l 72(C). 3" Before any cause of action may be heard in any state or federal court, administrative remedies must be exhausted under the procedure authorized by this Part." La. R.S. 15: 1176. 2 On July 30, 2015, Bryant sought supervisory writs on the district court's judgment. This Court found the district court's judgment to be final and appealable, and therefore remanded the case to the district court with an instruction that Bryant be granted an appeal in the instant matter. 4 DISCUSSION Bryant did not state an assignment of error, but it is clear from his brief and the record that he disputes the district court's dismissal of his petition for judicial review without prejudice. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine a particular class of actions or proceedings based upon the object of the demand, the amount in dispute, or the value of the right asserted. La. C.C.P. art. 2; IberiaBank v. Live Oak Circle Development, L.L.C., 2012-1636 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/13/13), 118 So.3d 27, 30. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be recognized by the court at any time, with or without formal exception. La. C.C.P. art. 3; IberiaBank, 118 So.3d at 30. The scope of review of the district court is limited to what is included in the record. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5). The record does not include an ARP petition that should have preceded the petition for judicial review. Such a petition would show that Bryant's administrative remedy process has been exhausted. Thus, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Based on La. R.S. 15:1172(C), the district court was correct to dismiss the petition for judicial review without prejudice, since there is no proof in the record that Bryant has exhausted his administrative remedies withLDPSC. 4 See Bryant v. Louisiana Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections, 2015-CW-1549 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/18/15) ( unpublished writ action). 3 DECREE The judgment of the 19th JDC, dismissing the petition for judicial review without prejudice, is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, Coindell Bryant. AFFIRMED. 4

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.