Prator v. Caddo Parish
| Decision Date | 05 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 38,085-CA.,38,085-CA. |
| Citation | 900 So.2d 350 |
| Parties | Steve PRATOR, Sheriff of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CADDO PARISH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Office of the Parish Attorney Parish of Caddo by Charles C. Grubb, Parish Attorney, by Alex J. Washington, Assistant Parish Attorney, for Appellant.
Wiener, Weiss & Madison by John M. Madison, Jr., Baton Rouge, for Appellee.
Before STEWART, GASKINS, CARAWAY, MOORE and LOLLEY, JJ.
This matter concerning an ongoing controversy between the Caddo Parish Commission ("Caddo Parish") and the Caddo Parish Sheriff, Steve Prator, ("the Sheriff") has been remanded from the Louisiana Supreme Court to address one remaining issue regarding Caddo Parish's claim to a credit for certain costs relative to the housing of out-of-Caddo-Parish inmates at the parish jail ("the credit issue"). For the reasons assigned, we affirm the trial court's judgment denying Caddo Parish's reconventional demand.
The history of this case is set forth in our prior opinion, Prator v. Caddo Parish, 38,085 (La.App.2d Cir.01/28/04), 865 So.2d 932, writ granted, 2004-0794 (La.05/21/04), 874 So.2d 159 ("Prator I").
When ruling on Caddo Parish's request for declaratory judgment that it is entitled to a credit from the Sheriff for expenses incurred relative to housing Department of Corrections ("DOC") federal and out-of-parish inmates in accordance with law, the trial court stated the following:
The Parish relies on Louisiana R.S. 15:824(B)(2) "when the State makes payment in accordance with this subsection no additional compensation from the Parish Governing Authority shall be paid to the Sheriff for the care of those prisoners being held for the department." The additional compensation referenced is to the minimum of $3.50 per day per Parish inmate. This simply means that the Sheriff may not collect twice, once from the parish and once from the State or Federal Government, for the same prisoner. The evidence at trial shows that rather than paying twice, the Parish is receiving a benefit to the extent that income from State or Federal prisoners subsidizes the overall cost of the jail. There is no statutory authority allowing the Parish a credit against its fixed costs for the jail. Attempts to impose a share of fixed costs for jails have been soundly rebuffed in Webre v. Wilson, 951281 (La.App. 1st Cir.04/04/96), 672 So.2d 1124 and City of Shreveport v. Caddo Parish, 27,519 (La.App.2d Cir.06/23/95), 658 So.2d 786, writ denied, 95-2285 (La.11/27/95), 663 So.2d 728, writ denied, 95-2298 (La.11/27/95), 663 So.2d 729.
An appeal by Caddo Parish ensued and following our ruling in Prator I, the Sheriff applied for a rehearing, which was denied. Both parties sought writs of certiorari, and it was Caddo Parish's writ which prompts this remand. Although the Louisiana Supreme Court held that there were no errors in this court's disposition of all other issues raised in Prator I, it did conclude an error in our holding that there was no justiciable controversy as to the "credit issue." That portion of Prator I was vacated. The matter was remanded to this court with the directive to address the merits of Caddo Parish's assignment of error number 4 regarding its reconventional demand, which specifically urges that Caddo Parish is entitled to a credit for certain costs relative to the housing of non-parish inmates at the Caddo Parish Correctional Center ("CCC"). See Prator v. Caddo Parish, 2004-0794 (La.12/01/04), 888 So.2d 812. Accordingly, we respectfully infer that the directive from the Louisiana Supreme Court entails whether the trial court committed manifest error in finding that Caddo Parish was not entitled to a credit from the Caddo Parish Sheriff for expenses incurred relative to housing DOC, federal, and out-of-parish inmates.
Louisiana C.C.P. art. 1872 states that a declaratory judgment or "declaration of rights" may be rendered to address a controversy involving the parties' legal relations as affected by a statute.
The following statutes are pertinent to the relationship between a police jury or governing agency of a parish and its sheriff:
The police jury of each parish shall provide a good and sufficient court-house, with rooms for jurors, and a good and sufficient jail, at such place as they may deem most convenient for the parish at large, provided that when the seat of justice is established by law, they shall not have power to remove it.
La. R.S. 33:1432, in pertinent part:
The compensation, fees, and costs allowed sheriffs, the parish of Orleans excepted, for all services in criminal matters, shall be the following:
(1) For keeping and feeding of prisoners in jail not less than three dollars and fifty cents per diem for each prisoner. Any surplus funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year shall be returned to the parish governing authority.
* * *
La. R.S. 15:566, in pertinent part:
A. The Department of Corrections shall pay the sum of eighteen dollars and twenty-five cents per day to the sheriff of each parish, or to the governing authority of those parishes in which said authority operates the parish jail, for feeding and maintaining each prisoner who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment at a state penitentiary, who is held in the parish jail without bail, pending an appeal. Each sheriff shall file a monthly report with the Department of Corrections and the local governing authority and shall be paid for such charges on a monthly basis by the Department of Corrections. However, in the parish of Orleans, said payment shall be to the criminal sheriff of the parish of Orleans, to be reimbursed to the city of New Orleans.
When the Department of Corrections makes payment in accordance with this Subsection, no additional compensation from the parish governing authority shall be paid for the care of such prisoners.
* * *
The governing authority of each parish shall be responsible for the physical maintenance of all parish jails and prisons. In those parishes in which the governing authority operates the parish jail the governing authority shall pass all bylaws and regulations they may deem expedient for the police and good government of the jails and prisons being operated by the parish governing authority.
Each sheriff shall be the keeper of the public jail of his parish, and shall by all lawful means preserve the peace and apprehend all disturbers thereof, and other public offenders.
The sheriffs or jailkeepers shall supply each prisoner daily with wholesome food sufficient in quantity for the proper maintenance of life. They shall provide the prisoners with clothing suited to and sufficient for the season.
* * *
La. R.S. 15:824, in pertinent part:
* * *
(B)(1)(a) In the event any individual has been committed to the department for confinement which is or has been delayed or prevented after final sentence by court order restricting the department from institutionalizing the individual, or when the individual is not institutionalized in a state penal or corrections institution because of lack of facilities under the control of the department, or the department otherwise refused to accept the individual for confinement, which resulted or has resulted in the individual being confined in a parish jail or institution after final sentence, or when he is being held in the parish jail without bail, pending an appeal, or when he is a participant in a Blue Walters Substance Abuse Program by order of a court in lieu of revocation of probation or by the Board of Parole in lieu of revocation of parole, the department shall pay to each parish sheriff, or to the governing authority of those parishes in which the governing authority operates the parish jail, for keeping and feeding the individual in the parish jail the sum of twenty-two dollars and thirty-nine cents per day from date of sentencing until the individual is confined in a penal or correctional institution under the supervision of the department.
(B)(1)(b) In addition, the department shall reimburse only the cost of extraordinary medical expenses incurred in emergency circumstances when the health of the inmate requires the use of the closest services available. The department shall require an inmate to file a claim for reimbursement with any available health or medical insurer in accordance with R.S. 15:831.
* * *
(B)(2) When the state makes payment in accordance with this Subsection, no additional compensation from the parish governing authority shall be paid to the sheriff for the care of those prisoners being held for the department.
* * *
The inception of the relationship between Caddo Parish and the Caddo Parish Sheriff Office can be found in La. R.S. 15:821, et seq. As previously established, Caddo Parish owns CCC, and the Sheriff is statutorily deemed to be the keeper of CCC and has the obligation to operate the facility. See La. R.S. 15:704. At the outset, it is well to go back to the original Answer To Petition For Declaratory Judgment And Reconventional Demand filed by Caddo Parish to ascertain what credit it is seeking from the Sheriff. One only has to examine the numerous briefs filed in this ever increasingly complicated matter to realize that much of the original claim has been expanded well beyond the original pleadings filed by Caddo Parish. It is our responsibility to clarify the credit issue as originally placed before the trial court and now before this court for reconsideration. In that regard, Caddo Parish's first argument to this court reflected the scope of its reconventional demand on the credit issue as follows:
Applicable Louisiana law, La. R.S. 15:566 and La. R.S. 15:824, provides that when the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office receives per diem payments for housing state prisoners, no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Gusman
...No. 714, at 4. 134. The nuances of this relationship are beyond the scope of the July 14 hearing. See, e.g., Prator v. Caddo Parish, 900 So. 2d 350, 356 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (noting that the presence of out-of-parish inmates could potentially increase fixed costs); see also R. Doc. No. 72......