Michael Dorsey VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2018 CA 0416 MICHAEL DORSEY VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered: SEP 2 4 ? QTR On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 652, 496 Honorable Todd Hernandez, Judge Presiding Michael Dorsey Plaintiff A - ppellant, Cottonport, LA In Proper Person Debra A. Rutledge Attorney for Defendant -Appellee, Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. HIGGINBOTHAM, J. In this appeal, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" DPSC") appeals the district court' s judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review of the final agency decision rendered in a disciplinary matter on the grounds that he failed to raise a " substantial right" violation and, thus, failed to state a cause of action. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 27, 2016, Michael Dorsey, an inmate in the custody of the DPSC, was issued a disciplinary report for violating Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders.' Behaviors) Dorsey was charged with violating Rule 30 D (General Prohibited for giving a letter to an officer while in the infirmary in an " attempt gain a non-professional relationship" with the officer. to Following a hearing, the Disciplinary Board found him guilty and sentenced him to a custody change to maximum working cell block and six weeks loss of yard privileges. He appealed the decision to the warden and the Secretary of the DPSC, and his appeal was denied by both. On October 28, 2016, Dorsey filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court contending that his due process rights were violated. In a recommendation issued by the commissioner, the commissioner concluded that Dorsey failed to state a cause of action because he did not raise a violation of his substantial rights. Therefore, the commissioner recommended that Dorsey' s petition for judicial review be dismissed. After a de novo review of the record, the district court adopted the reasons of the commissioner and dismissed Dorsey' s petition without prejudice. Dorsey then filed the instant appeal. 1 These rules are compiled in the Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 22, Part I, Chapter 3, Subchapter B. See LAC 22: 1. 341. 2 DISCUSSION Pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9), a district court may modify or reverse a decision of the DPSC in a prison disciplinary action " only if substantial rights of the appeIIant have been prejudiced" because the DPSC' s findings or decisions are: ( 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; ( 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; ( 3) made upon unlawful procedure; ( 4) affected by other error of law; ( 5) or ( 6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record. ( Emphasis added). The notion that the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause are triggered by any substantial deprivation imposed by prison authorities has been soundly rejected. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224- 225, 96 S. Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 ( 1976). Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. Discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected perimeters of the sentence imposed by a court of law. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485, S. Ct. 2293, 2301, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 ( 1995). 115 Thus, in order for Dorsey' s petition to state a cognizable claim for judicial review of a disciplinary matter, it must allege facts demonstrating that his " decision. substantial rights" See Giles v. Cain, 99- 1201 ( were prejudiced by the agency' s La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 23/ 00), 762 So. 2d 734, 738. Here, the disciplinary proceedings resulted in a change in Dorsey' s custody status and a temporary loss of yard privileges. It is well settled that a change of custody status and loss of yard privileges do not constitute atypical or significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life and do not prejudice an inmate' s substantial rights. See Robinson v. Rader, 2014- 0333 ( La. App. 1st Cir. N 11/ 20/ 14), 167 So. 3d 780, 781; Harris v. Cain, 2010- 1474 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 11/ 11), 2011 WL 846078, * 2 ( unpublished); Simmons v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2017- 0961 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 2/ 20/ 18), 946946, * 1 ( unpublished). 2018 WL Because Dorsey' s change in custody status and loss of yard privileges do not affect his substantial rights, the district court did not err in dismissing Dorsey' s claim. See La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9), and 1178. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the October 24, 2017 judgment of the district court dismissing Dorsey' s petition for judicial review without prejudice is affirmed. costs of the appeal are assessed against plaintiff-appellant, Michael Dorsey. 11 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.
