Ronnie Hongo VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2018 CA 0155 RONNIE HONGO 90uISIANA VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered: SEP 2 12018 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. 631, 437 Honorable Janice Clark, Judge Presiding In Proper Person Ronnie Hongo David Wade Correctional Center Homer, Louisiana Susan Wall Griffin Attorney for Appellee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ. PENZATO, J. Ronnie Hongo, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( the Department), appeals a judgment that dismissed his petition for judicial review. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mr. Hongo filed a petition for judicial review of Administrative Remedy Procedure No. DWCC-2013- 1224 in accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1171 et seq. his petition, Mr. Hongo asked that he " be given [ his] status, given [ In permanent indoors duty his] orthopaedic pillow for degenerative disc disease, Keppra 750 r mg. twice a day, and sent to neuro [ and] ortho." The record was reviewed by the Commissioner,' who issued a report finding that there was no evidence that the medical treatment provided to Mr. Hongo was unreasonable or had resulted in any additional injury or aggravation of his illness. The Commissioner further found that although Mr. Hongo was prescribed an orthopaedic pillow, there was no proof that it was provided to him. Commissioner The recommended that the Department' s decision be affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and that the suit be dismissed without prejudice. Following a de novo review of the record, the trial court signed a judgment on July 5, 2017, which provided that: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the Department' s decision be affirmed in part and reversed in part. This appeal is to be dismissed without prejudice at the Department' s costs. On September 19, 2017, Mr. Hongo filed a notice of appeal from the July 5, 2017 judgment. On February 7, 2018, this court, ex proprio motu, issued a show cause order concerning whether the appeal should be dismissed, as it appeared to have been 1 The office of the Commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court was created by La. R.S. 13: 711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. The Commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. Stalder, 2003- 2549 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 10/ 29/ 04), 897 So. 2d 112, 113 n. 1. 2 Hakim- El-Mumit v. untimely filed. The rule to show cause was referred to this panel, to which the appeal was assigned. JURISDICTION Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue. Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 2011- 0520 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 9/ 11), 2012- 0360 ( La. 4/ 9/ 12), judgments." certain." 85 So. 3d 698. See La. C. C. P. art. 2083. Laird v. St. 79 So. 3d 1054, 1059, writ denied, Our appellate jurisdiction extends to " final A valid judgment must be " precise, definite, and Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 12/ 20/ 02), 836 So. 2d 364, 365. 2002- 0045 ( La. App. 1 Cir. Moreover, a final appealable judgment must contain decretal language, and it must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied. Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 2001- 2016 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 27/ 02), 44. See 837 So. 2d 43, These determinations should be evident from the language of the judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Laird, 836 So. 2d at 366. Thus, a judgment that does not contain decretal language cannot be considered as a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review such a judgment. See Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 2005- 0337 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 24/ 06), 934 So. 2d 66, 67 The July 5, 2017 judgment does not identify which part of the Department' s decision is affirmed and which is reversed. In addition, the judgment dismissed Mr. Hongo' s appeal, despite granting him part of the requested relief. Thus, we find that the July 5, 2017 judgment is defective because the relief that is granted in part and denied in part cannot be determined from the language of the judgment without reference to extrinsic documents. In the absence of a valid final judgment, we lack jurisdiction to review this matter.2 2 As we find that we do not have jurisdiction to review the July 5, 2017 judgment, we pretermit consideration of whether the appeal was timely filed, and dismiss the rule to show cause as moot. 3 CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Assessment of appeal costs are to await a final determination of this suit. APPEAL DISMISSED.
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.
