Jeanlouis v. Stalder

• Decision Date: 16 April 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2009 CA 1653.,2009 CA 1653.
• Citation: 36 So.3d 938
• Parties: Gregory JEANLOUISv.Richard STALDER, Secretary of Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections; Connell Hubert, Warden of Elayn Hunt Correctional Center; Danny Williamson, Director of Mental Health; Five Nurses or “Jane Doe's”; NP Joni Niclews; Ms. Smith and Stephanie Slaughter.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

36 So.3d 938

Gregory JEANLOUISv.Richard STALDER, Secretary of Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections; Connell Hubert, Warden of Elayn Hunt Correctional Center; Danny Williamson, Director of Mental Health; Five Nurses or “Jane Doe's”; NP Joni Niclews; Ms. Smith and Stephanie Slaughter.

No. 2009 CA 1653.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana First Circuit.

March 26, 2010.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 2010.

Gregory Jeanlouis, Angola, LA, in proper person.

William L. Kline, Baton Rouge, LA, Attorney for Defendant-Appellee Department of Public Safety & Corrections.

Before CARTER, C.J., GUIDRY, and PETTIGREW, JJ.

PETTIGREW, J.

This action was filed by an inmate seeking judicial review of a disciplinary decision made by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DOC”). The district court, upon recommendation of the commissioner, rendered judgment in favor of DOC and against the inmate, dismissing the inmate's suit without prejudice, at his cost. From this judgment, the inmate now appeals to this court.

FACTS

Petitioner, Gregory Jeanlouis, an inmate at Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”) at Angola, Louisiana, initially filed a request for Administrative Remedy Procedure (“ARP”) on December 1, 2006. Mr. Jeanlouis, who is allegedly afflicted with Hepatitis C, alleged therein that on November 29, 2006, he was “abruptly [refused] ... life-saving treatment as retaliation for ... availing [himself of] the ARP process on November 21, 2006, only five (5) weeks into an 11-month [treatment] plan.”

In response to his ARP request, Mr. Jeanlouis received a First Step Response Form dated March 7, 2007, from Assistant Warden Haydel, who found that on November 27, 2006, Mr. Jeanlouis had “signed a refusal form.” Assistant Warden Haydel further stated that Mr. Jeanlouis had been “explained the risk in not receiving proper treatment by our Hepatitis Specialist. Since this time [Mr. Jeanlouis was] transfered [sic] back to LSP.”

On April 5, 2007, Mr. Jeanlouis filed a request for a Second Step review. Mr. Jeanlouis received a Second Step Response Form dated May 23, 2007, from Linda Ramsay, designee of DOC Secretary, Richard Stalder. In her response, Ms. Ramsay stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

Your statements have been considered as wed as your medical records. After a thorough review of all pertinent documentation, we find that you received continuous medical evaluations and treatment for your Hepatitis condition since 1998. The medical staff has addressed your concerns in an appropriate manner and in accordance with Health Care Policy # B-06-001. Medical opinion is controlling. The care you have received as well as the care you will continue to receive from the medical staff is determined adequate for your health care concerns. As such, this office has accepted staff's position in this matter and concurs with the response provided at the First Level. Therefore, administrative intervention is not forthcoming.

Your request for relief is denied.

ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Mr. Jeanlouis filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court on July 20, 2007. Secretary of DOC, Richard Stalder; Warden of Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Connell Hubert; Director of Mental Health, Danny Williamson; Five nurses or “Jane Does”; N.P. Joni Niclews; Ms. Smith; and Stephanie Slaughter were all named as defendants in the suit filed by Mr. Jeanlouis. The basis of Mr. Jeanlouis' suit is that he received inadequate medical treatment and has been subjected to harassment or retaliation by the medical or other prison staff in attempting to obtain medication and treatment for Hepatitis C and related medical conditions. Mr. Jeanlouis moved for, and was granted, the right to proceed in forma pauperis.

The DOC filed the administrative record, # EHCC-2007-170, into the record as “Exhibit A,” and following issuance of an order for a medical supplement, the DOC filed “Exhibit B” in compliance therewith. The district court thereafter issued orders concerning briefs to the parties, and a report by the commissioner followed.

Following a review of the claim filed by Mr. Jeanlouis, and a de novo consideration of the entire record, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court agreed with the commissioner's findings, which the court adopted as its reasons, and dismissed, without prejudice, Mr. Jeanlouis' suit. Mr. Jeanlouis thereafter moved for a devolutive appeal to this court.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

In connection with his appeal in this matter, Mr. Jeanlouis filed a rambling 68-page recitation of events that have taken place during his incarceration; however, it is unclear as to the particular relief sought by Mr. Jeanlouis. It is evident that Mr. Jeanlouis is dissatisfied with the medical treatment he has received in prison, and claims he has been harassed or retaliated against by the medical or other prison staff in his attempts to obtain his proper medication and treatment for Hepatitis C and related medical conditions.

DISCUSSION

This court discussed the administrative review procedure provided for in the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (CARP), La. R.S. 15:1171 et seq. in Lightfoot v. Stalder, 00-1120 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/22/01), 808 So.2d 710; writ denied, 01-2295 (La.8/30/02), 823 So.2d 957:

Through the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act, LSA-R.S. 15:1171 et seq. , the prison systems were given authority to adopt procedures for offenders to produce evidence to substantiate their claims. Blackwell v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 96-0954, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/97); 690 So.2d 137, 141 writ denied, 97-1158 (La.9/5/97); 700 So.2d 507. A simple review of the Act evidences that its procedures are designed primarily as an internal investigative and information-gathering mechanism, a function of particular importance in the prison setting, since most, if not all, of the evidence is at the prison itself. Blackwell, 96-0954 at p. 9; 690 So.2d at 142.

....

The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure promotes the State's interest in prompt and fair internal resolution of inmate grievances and, consequently, does not violate an inmate's right to substantive due process. Blackwell, 96-0954 at p. 11; 690 So.2d at 143. Furthermore, an inmate's right to procedural due process is satisfied by the availability of judicial review. Blackwell, 96-0954 at p. 11; 690 So.2d at 143.

Pursuant to the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act, review of a decision by the [DOC] made in the course of the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The review shall be limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy request filed at the agency level. LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A)(5).

Thus, under the statutory framework of the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act, the opportunity for the parties to present evidence occurs at the administrative level, not at the trial court level, and review by the trial court is limited to the record established at the administrative level, absent alleged irregularities in the procedure. See LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A)(5).

Lightfoot, 00-1120, at 5-6, 808 So.2d at 715 quoting

Robinson v. Stalder, 98-0558, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/1/99); 734 So.2d 810, 811-812.

In our previous opinion in Lightfoot, this court further noted:

The standard for judicial review by the district court is set forth, in pertinent part, in La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9), which provides:

The court may reverse or modify the decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

(b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency.

(c) Made upon unlawful procedure.

(d) Affected

...