Henderson v. Avoyelles Corr. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | 16–16.,Nos. 15–966,s. 15–966 |
| Citation | 190 So.3d 1283 |
| Parties | Andre HENDERSON v. AVOYELLES CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Justin Bo West, Ville Platte, LA, Derrick G. Earles, Laborde Earles Law Firm, Marksville, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Andre Henderson.
Jeff Landry, Attorney General, Edward M. Campbell, Special Assistant Attorney General, Natchitoches, LA, for Defendants/Appellees, Avoyelles Correctional Center, Office of Risk Management State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety & Corrections.
Wesley K. Elmer, Law Office of Darrel D. Ryland, Marksville, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, Doug Anderson, Solely in his Official Capactity as Avoyelles Parish Sheriff.
Court composed of JIMMIE C. PETERS, MARC T. AMY, and DAVID KENT SAVOIE, Judges.
, J.
In one of these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff, Andre Henderson, appeals a trial court judgment finding that his claim against Avoyelles Parish Sheriff Doug Anderson was prescribed; and in the other consolidated appeal, he appeals a separate trial court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the Avoyelles Correctional Center and the State of Louisiana, dismissing his claims against those entities as well. For the following reasons, we affirm both judgments.
On May 12, 2011, Mr. Henderson filed suit against the Avoyelles Correctional Center (Correctional Center) and the State of Louisiana, through the Office of Risk Management and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (all three sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as “the state”), seeking damages based on the Correctional Center's failure to respond to his requests for medical treatment. Mr. Henderson was found unresponsive in his jail cell on December 10, 2010; and was ultimately transported to the LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, Louisiana, where he underwent the amputation of three fingers due to gangrene
and meningitis.
The state initially responded to the suit on August 10, 2011, by filing a dilatory exception of prematurity and a motion to dismiss based on Mr. Henderson's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies available to him pursuant to the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (CARP), as provided by La.R.S. 15:1171, et seq.
On February 10, 2012, the state moved for summary judgment based on the assertion that it had no liability to Mr. Henderson because he had never been incarcerated at the Correctional Center.
Eighteen days later, on February 28, 2012, Mr. Henderson filed the first of four amending petitions, in which he named the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Department/Office and/or the Avoyelles Parish Law Enforcement and the Avoyelles Parish Detention Center as additional defendants. On April 30, 2012, he filed his second amending petition, naming Sheriff Doug Anderson as a defendant in place of the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Department/Office and/or the Avoyelles Parish Law Enforcement. On May 14, 2012, Mr. Henderson filed his third amending petition, naming Sheriff Doug Anderson, in his official capacity, as defendant. Sheriff Anderson responded to these petitions with a peremptory exception of no cause of action and dilatory exceptions of nonconformity, vagueness, and ambiguity.
On August 23, 2012, Mr. Henderson filed his final amending petition, naming Sheriff Anderson, solely in his official capacity, as a defendant. He further amended his petition to state that he had been incarcerated at the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's prison facility (Sheriff's prison facility) between October 18 and December 16, 2010, rather than the Correctional Center; and was serving a ninety-day probation revocation sentence pursuant to La.R.S. 15:574.9
and La.Code Crim.P. art. 900. He asserted that he was housed in the Sheriff's prison facility through an agreement between Sheriff Anderson and the state, wherein the state paid Sheriff Anderson to house Department of Corrections (DOC) inmates, specifically inmates such as him. Mr. Henderson also asserted that all of the defendants were liable in solido, either vicariously or contractually, because despite being aware of his complaints, they failed to provide him with appropriate medical care.
On November 13, 2012, Sheriff Anderson filed dilatory and peremptory exceptions of prematurity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and prescription; and seven days later, the state filed dilatory and declinatory exceptions of prematurity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sheriffs Anderson's exceptions were heard by the trial court on June 1, 2015, and taken under advisement that same day. On June 26, 2015, the trial court rendered reasons for judgment, concluding that Mr. Henderson's causes of action against Sheriff Anderson had prescribed. The trial court executed a written judgment to that effect on July 14, 2015, and thereafter, Mr. Henderson perfected the first of the two appeals now before this court.
On August 10, 2015, the state's motion for summary judgment and exceptions of prematurity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction were heard by the trial court. As a part of the evidentiary record, the parties agreed to adopt, by reference, Mr. Henderson's testimony from the June 1, 2015 hearing. At the completion of the hearing, the trial court took the issues under advisement, and on October 6, 2015, issued reasons for judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the state. The trial court executed a written judgment granting the summary judgment on October 15, 2015, and Mr. Henderson perfected an appeal from that judgment. This court consolidated the two appeals.
On appeal, Mr. Henderson argues that the trial court erred in granting the peremptory exception of prescription in favor of Sheriff Anderson and the motion for summary judgment in favor of the state.
OPINIONA personal injury claim is a delictual action subject to a one-year liberative prescription period, which commences to run the day the injury or damage is sustained. La.Civ.Code art. 3492
. A defendant objecting to a plaintiff's claim on the basis of prescription does so by peremptory exception. La.Code Civ.P. art. 927(A). The burden of proof on the peremptory exception of prescription lies with the party raising the exception. Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC, 13–673 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278. However, if it is apparent from the face of the pleadings that the plaintiff's claims have prescribed, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show otherwise. Id. Additionally, prescription statutes are to be strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the obligation sought to be extinguished.
.
Appellate review applicable to a peremptory exception depends on the manner in which the exception is heard. If evidence, either supporting or opposing the exception, is presented at a hearing on the exception, appellate courts review the matter pursuant to the manifest error standard of review. In re Succ. of Cole, 12–802 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/26/12), 108 So.3d 240
, writ denied, 13–257 (La.3/15/13), 109 So.2d 384. However, if no evidence is introduced, appellate courts review the matter de novo to determine whether the trial court was legally correct in granting the exception. OMNI Energy Servs. Corp. v. Rhyne, 14–322 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/15/14), 149 So.3d 1282, writ denied, 15–1 (La.3/27/15), 162 So.3d 387. Because evidence was presented at the hearing in this instance, we will review this issue pursuant to the manifest error standard.
provides that “[w]hen the action or defense asserted in the amended petition or answer arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of filing the original pleading.” In Ray v. Alexandria Mall, through St. Paul Property & Liability Insurance, 434 So.2d 1083, 1087 (La.1983), the supreme court established four criteria for determining whether an amended petition relates back to the original petition pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 1153 :
Mr. Henderson testified that he was transferred to a prison in Avoyelles Parish after his probation was revoked, and that initially he did not know in what facility he was being housed. Two weeks after arriving at the Sheriff's prison facility, he began feeling ill and filled out a request for medical treatment. According to Mr. Henderson, he was told that his request would take time, but he never received any treatment. On December 10, 2010, he lost consciousness while in his dorm room, and he later woke up in the hospital.
According to Mr. Henderson, he did not learn that he was being housed in the Sheriff's prison facility and not a state facility until after he filed suit and the first hearing was held. In fact, after that hearing, he and his attorney drove around the parish looking at the different jails. He initially thought he was being housed at the Correctional Center because his fellow inmates were all state prisoners, and because the prison guards were wearing shirts with logos representing both the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's Office and the Correctional Center. Thus, he assumed that he was at the Correctional...
To continue reading
Request your trial