Barker v. Plattsmier
| Decision Date | 11 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019 CA 1073,2019 CA 1073 |
| Citation | 304 So.3d 78 |
| Parties | Samuel BARKER v. Chief Disciplinary Counsel Charles B. PLATTSMIER, The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (A State Agency), Karen H. Green-Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, Michael P. Wilson-Screening Counsel, Panel-A Counsels Anderson O. Dotson III, Linda G. Bizzaro, Charles H. Williamson, Jr., and Autumn Harrel H2Law, LLC |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Samuel Barker, Angola, LA, Appellant/Plaintiff, In Proper Person
Jeff Landry, Attorney General, David G. Sanders, James "Gary" Evans, Andre Charles Castaing, Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for Appellee/Defendant, Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board
Glenn B. Adams, Corey D. Moll, New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Appellee/Defendant, Autumn Harrell
BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
The appellant, Samuel Barker, an inmate incarcerated with the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LDPSC) at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, filed a state civil rights violation petition for damages on October 25, 2018, stemming from alleged civil rights violations committed against him by his court-appointed trial counsel, Autumn Harrell. Specifically, Mr. Barker alleged that: Ms. Harrell acted unethically in violation of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct for failing to visit him to discuss his case prior to the beginning of his criminal trial; for representing him despite having a conflict of interest; and for allegedly suggesting to the jury during closing arguments that Mr. Barker was guilty on at least one count, despite his desire to maintain his innocence on all counts.1
Mr. Barker initially filed a complaint against Ms. Harrell with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (LADB), which the LADB dismissed for its failure to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Harrell had engaged in unethical conduct in violation of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Barker's subsequent appeal of the LADB's decision was also dismissed. Mr. Barker then appealed that ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and that appeal was denied. With his remedies exhausted, Mr. Barker filed the present petition for damages with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, naming Ms. Harrell and the LADB as defendants and seeking monetary damages from Ms. Harrell and a reversal of the LADB's dismissal of his complaint.
In response to the petition, the LADB filed exceptions raising the objections of improper service and no cause of action. Ms. Harrell also filed exceptions raising various objections, two of which were lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. Following a hearing on February 11, 2019, the district court ruled that the LADES's exception raising the objection of improper service was withdrawn, and the exception raising the objection of no cause of action was granted. With respect to Ms. Harrell, the court ruled that her exceptions raising the objections of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue were granted. In a judgment signed on March 6, 2019, the district court dismissed Mr. Barker's petition against the LADB and Ms. Harrell with prejudice.
Mr. Barker applied for supervisory writs with this court on March 7, 2019 in response to the district court's judgment. We denied the application, finding that the district court's judgment of March 6, 2019 was final and appealable, and that Mr. Barker could file a motion for appeal with the district court pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2087. See Barker v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, et al., 2019-0267 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/17/19), (unpublished).
Notice of the March 6,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. Exxon Chem. La.
...the filing of plaintiffs writ application did not suspend the running of the time delays to appeal the March 6, 2019 judgment. See Barker, 304 So.3d at 80 (citing Everett, So.3d at 885-886 and Guillory, 383 So.2d at 145). In Gregory Swafford Family Trust v. Graystar Mortgage, LLC, 2021-0200......
- Hernandez v. Excel Contractors, Inc.