Families & Friends of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children v. City of New Orleans

• Decision Date: 28 January 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-C-0674
• Citation: 335 So.3d 265
• Parties: FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LOUISIANA'S INCARCERATED CHILDREN; Jane Doe, on Behalf of Herself and Her Minor Child, John Doe; and Mary Roe, on Behalf of Herself and Her Minor Child, Joseph Roe v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS and Latoya Cantrell, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of New Orleans
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

335 So.3d 265

FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LOUISIANA'S INCARCERATED CHILDREN; Jane Doe, on Behalf of Herself and Her Minor Child, John Doe; and Mary Roe, on Behalf of Herself and Her Minor Child, Joseph Roe

v.CITY OF NEW ORLEANS and Latoya Cantrell, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of New Orleans

NO. 2021-C-0674

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

JANUARY 28, 2022

Hector Linares, Sara Godchaux, Davida Finger, Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, 7214 St. Charles Avenue, Box 902, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, COUNSEL FOR RELATORS/PLAINTIFFS

Elizabeth S. Robins, Eraka W. DeLarge, Donesia D. Turner, City Attorney's Office, City Hall, Room 5E03, 1300 Perdido Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

(Court composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods )

JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS

Relators/plaintiffs, Families and Friends of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children, Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and her minor child, John Doe, and Mary Roe, on behalf of herself and her minor child, Joseph Roe, seek review of the district court's November 9, 2021 judgment granting the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by defendants, the City of New Orleans and Latoya Cantrell, in her official capacity as Mayor of New Orleans. In addition, the district court's judgment dismissed the petition without prejudice and transferred the matter to juvenile court, but issued a stay of its judgment pending review by this Court. Based upon our review of the writ application and the applicable law, this Court finds plaintiffs’ petition does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of juvenile court pursuant to La. Ch. C. art. 303. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment granting the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand this matter to Civil District Court for further proceedings.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus naming the City of New Orleans and Mayor Latoya Cantrell as defendants. Plaintiffs are Families and Friends of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children, a nonprofit organization, along with two parents on behalf of themselves and their minor children, who were in continued custody at the Juvenile Justice Intervention Center ("JJIC") when an emergency evacuation policy was implemented by defendants. Plaintiffs assert that the defendants created and implemented an emergency evacuation policy that violates the statutory provisions of La. Ch. C. art. 822,¹ concerning the place of continued custody of juveniles prior to adjudication, and the special juvenile procedures guaranteed by La. Const. Art. 5, § 19. Plaintiffs’ petition seeks: judgment declaring the defendants’ policies pertaining to the evacuation of detained juveniles unconstitutional and in violation of La. Ch. C. art. 822 ; an injunction prohibiting defendants from implementing the evacuation policies; and a mandamus ordering defendants to develop an evacuation policy that does not violate the constitutional and statutory provisions pertaining to juvenile continued custody.

In response to plaintiffs’ petition, defendants filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction, pursuant to La. Ch. C. arts. 302 and 303(11), to adjudicate whether "JJIC's temporary housing arrangement during a declared disaster" violated La. Ch.C. art. 822.

At the hearing on defendants’ exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the district court found that juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ petition pursuant to La. Ch. C. arts. 302 and 303(11). Subsequently, the district court rendered judgment sustaining defendants’ exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissing plaintiffs’ petition without prejudice, and ordering the matter transferred to juvenile court.

Plaintiffs now seek review of the district court's November 9, 2021 judgment.

DISCUSSION

La. Ch. C. art. 302(1) confers exclusive original juvenile jurisdiction to special juvenile courts created by law for certain parishes, including Orleans Parish. La. Ch. C. art. 303 outlines the specific matters that "[a] court exercising juvenile jurisdiction shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over," which in pertinent part includes:

(1) Delinquency proceedings pursuant to Title VIII, except when a child either:

a. Is subject to the jurisdiction of criminal courts for prosecution and liability as an adult pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Title.

b. Has been transferred by the juvenile court for criminal prosecution and liability as an adult pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title VIII.

* * *

(11) Such other jurisdiction over children as may be provided by law.

Defendants contend that La. Ch.C. art. 303(11) confers exclusive original jurisdiction to the juvenile court over this matter because relators have alleged a violation of La. Ch. C. art. 822. We find no merit in this argument.

Plaintiffs have not alleged a specific violation of La. Ch. C. art. 822 concerning a court's order for continued custody of a specific juvenile in a delinquency proceeding. Rather, plaintiffs allege that the policy created and implemented by defendants is a direct violation of the statutory provisions and constitutional requirements for protecting the rights of all juveniles who are in continued custody prior to delinquency adjudication. At issue in this petition is the City's policy for evacuation of the JJIC and the agreement between the JJIC and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections for housing juvenile detainees in adult facilities during an emergency evacuation. Although plaintiffs’ petition does involve the interpretation of La. Ch. C. art. 822, this is primarily a civil rights action, which does not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Thus, in consideration that the plaintiffs’ petition does not involve a violation of La. Ch. C. art. 822 by the juvenile court in a delinquency proceeding, and in consideration of the particular relief sought against the named defendants in plaintiffs’ petition, we find that La. Ch. C. art. 303 does not confer exclusive jurisdiction over this matter to juvenile court, and we find no merit to defendants’ exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, we grant the writ, reverse the district court's judgment, and remand the matter to Civil District Court for further proceedings.

WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED

LOBRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS.

LOBRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS.

I respectfully dissent.

Petitioners/Relators, Family and Friends of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children, Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and her minor child, John Doe, and Mary Roe, on behalf of herself and her minor child, Joseph Roe ("Relators"), seek appellate review of the November 9, 2021 judgment ("the Judgment") granting an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by defendants/respondents, the City of New Orleans’ and its mayor, Latoya Cantrell (collectively referred to as "the City"), and remanding the matter from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans ("District Court") to the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Orleans ("Juvenile Court").

The City filed a declinatory exception arguing that District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. La. C.C.P. art. 925(A)(6). The court must accept the allegations set forth in Relators’ petition as true for the purpose of ruling on the exception, particularly if no evidence is introduced, which is determinative of the issues. See State v. Illinois Central Railroad Company , 04-1789, p. 13 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/05), 928 So.2d 60, 68 ; Banks v. Carl Ott Poles & Piling, Inc. , 440 So.2d 803, 805 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1983). However, the court is not required to accept conclusory factual allegations or allegations of law as true for purposes of the exception if they are contrary to the record or the law. See Kirby v. Field , 04-1898, p. 6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/23/05), 923 So.2d 131, 135, writ denied , 05-2467 (La. 3/24/06), 925 So.2d 1230. The determination of whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case is subject to de novo review. In re D.C.M. , 13-0085, pp. 7-8 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/11/13), 170 So.3d 165, 169 ; TD*X Assocs., LP v. Louisiana Dep't of Env't Quality , 2020-0081, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/20), 2020 WL 6557758, at *2.

Based on my de novo review and, for purposes of the exception only, my acceptance of certain factual allegations and allegations of law set forth in Relators’ petition as true, I would vacate the judgment and allow Relators time to amend their petition as I find that Relators are able to cure certain jurisdictional deficiencies discussed infra through amendment or dismissal of certain claims. When the grounds pleaded in the declinatory exception "may be removed by amendment of the petition or other action of plaintiff, the judgment sustaining the exception shall order the plaintiff to remove them within the delay allowed by the court..." La. C.C.P. art. 932(A). I find vacating the judgment and granting Relators a delay to amend their pleadings the appropriate remedy in the interest of expedited justice for the following reasons:

Pursuant to La. Ch. C. art. 302, District Court is strictly prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over "juvenile matters" because Orleans Parish has a specially created juvenile court.¹ Juvenile Court enjoys not only Article 303(1) exclusive, original juvenile jurisdiction over delinquency proceedings, but also Article 303(11) jurisdiction over children as may be provided by law.² La Const. art. V, § 19 mandates that Juvenile Court shall make all determinations relative to "the detention, and the custody of a person who is...