Opinion
2023 CA 0599
12-27-2023
MYLES ALLEN v. WARDEN, DARREL VANNOY, LT. K. WHFTE & CAPT. B. MCMULLEN, LT. COL R. WRIGHT
Myles Allen Homer, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant Pro se Elizabeth B. Desselle Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No. 705359 Honorable Ronald R. Johnson, Judge Presiding
Myles Allen Homer, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant Pro se
Elizabeth B. Desselle Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.
MCCLENDON, J.
In this appeal, an inmate challenges the trial court's judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review of his lost property claim with prejudice. Based on our review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Following an incident on October 14, 2020, Myles Allen, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (the Department) and confined to the David Wade Correctional Center, was placed in administrative segregation at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. According to the "Personal Property Storage Documentation" form (storage documentation form) completed the same day, Mr. Allen's personal property was secured in two sealed locker boxes and one green bag with tamper proof seals. "Lt. K. White" placed Mr. Allen's property in storage. As Mr. Allen was not present, Lieutenant White and Captain Brandy McMullen signed the storage documentation form verifying the property was secured, sealed with a tamper proof seal, and placed in storage. The storage documentation form further reflects Mr. Allen's signature, dated October 28, 2020, beneath the following language:
I, the undersigned, hereby acknowledge receipt of my property and acknowledge that the tamper proof seal which was placed on my property at the time of storage was intact and had not been broken at the time the property was returned to me.
Despite having signed the storage documentation form, and thereby verified his receipt of his property with the tamper proof seals intact, Mr. Allen initiated a lost property claim under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (CARP), LSA-R.S. 15:1171, et seq., on November 3, 2020. On Mr. Allen's "Lost Personal Property Claim" form (lost property claim), he asserted that upon his return to quarters, "[he] received [his] lockers with seals on them instead of [his] locks." He further claimed that, "after getting the seals removed," he discovered certain items were missing from his lockers. Mr. Allen's claim was assigned number LSP-2020-2762.
Mr. Allen's lost property claim was denied at both levels of administrative review. Mr. Allen filed a petition seeking judicial review of the denial of his claim. The trial court, adopting the commissioner's recommendation, affirmed the Department's decisions and dismissed Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review, with prejudice. From this judgment, Mr. Allen appeals.
The office of the commissioner of the 19th JDC was created by LSA-R.S. 13:711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. The commissioner's written findings and recommendations are submitted to a trial judge, who may accept, reject or modify them. Allen v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2020-0445, (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/19/21), 320 So.3d 1175, 1176 n.2.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Mr. Allen raises a single assignment of error, contending that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for judicial review of his lost personal property claim for failure to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted.
APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Lost property claims by inmates are matters of prison administration or conditions of confinement that are governed by CARP. Lewis v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2019-1693 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/5/20), 312 So.3d 592, 594, writ denied, 2021-00158 (La. 3/9/21), 312 So.3d 583. Lost property claims are handled through a specialized administrative remedy procedure set forth in LAC 22:I:325(L), rather than the general administrative remedy procedure. Simmons v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2020-0301 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/30/20), 316 So.3d 1141,1144. If an offender's personal property is lost due to the negligence of the institution and/or its employees, LAC 22:I:325(L)(1)(c) sets forth procedures for processing the offender's claim and providing the offender certain relief. However, pursuant to LAC 22:I:325(L)(1)(a)(i), "[u]nder no circumstances will an offender be compensated for an unsubstantiated loss."
A reviewing court may reverse or modify an administrative 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 by other error of law; (e) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion; or (f) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record. LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A)(9); Lewis, 312 So.3d at 594-95. On appellate review of a trial court's judgment in a suit for judicial review under CARP, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the trial court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. Simmons, 316 So.3d at 1143-44. Thus, our judicial review of Mr. Allen's lost property claim is de novo. See Simmons, 316 So.3d at 1144.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Allen contends the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for judicial review on the basis of failing to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:1184(B), the court, on its own motion or on the motion of a party, shall dismiss any prisoner suit if the court is satisfied that the action fails to state a cause of action. The exception of no cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading. State ex rel. Tureau v. BEPCO, L.P., 2021-0856 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 297, 309. A determination of whether a petition asserts a cause of action is based solely on the sufficiency of the petition, and the well-pleaded facts of the petition must be accepted as true. See Tureau, 351 So.3d at 309-310. No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the exception. LSA-C.C.P. art. 931.
If the court makes a determination to dismiss the suit based on the content, or lack thereof, the petition, the court may dismiss the underlying claim without first requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies. LSA-R.S. 15:1184(8).
In order to state a cause of action, an inmate's petition for judicial review of an administrative decision must allege that the inmate's substantial rights have been prejudiced. Pooler v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2023-0083 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/15/23), 2023 WL 6014536, *4 (unpublished), citing Robinson v. Rader, 2014-0333 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/20/14), 167 So.3d 780, 780-81; LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A)(9). In Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review, he alleged his personal property was lost as a result of the Department's negligence. Thus, assuming these allegations to be true, the trial court may have erred in dismissing Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review for failure to state a cause of action.
However, finding on our de novo review that Mr. Allen's petition for judicial review was properly dismissed on the merits, we need not determine whether his petition stated a cause of action. The administrative record demonstrates, and Mr. Allen concedes, that he signed the storage documentation form acknowledging that his property had been returned to him with the tamper proof seals intact, and that he did not report any missing property. Mr. Allen claims he was unable to immediately report his missing property because his property was returned to him by another inmate, rather than by an employee. He also contends the storage documentation filed with his petition confirms another inmate returned his property, because the signature block provided on the form for an employee to verify delivery of the property is unsigned. However, this is controverted by the copy of the storage documentation form filed by the Department, which was signed and dated by a staff member on the "Delivered By" line. Mr. Allen also fails to explain how or why he was able to sign the storage documentation form confirming receipt of his property if the property was delivered by another inmate. Moreover, Mr. Allen provides conflicting versions of what happened when his property was returned to him, claiming in his initial lost property claim form and various other statements that he received his property with the seals intact, but stating in his administrative remedy procedure supplement that the inmate who allegedly delivered his property also "broke the proof seals."
We note Mr. Allen's argument on appeal that the Department failed to comply with Department Regulation No. IS-A-3. However, Mr. Allen did not raise this argument in his initial lost property claim, nor did he raise it in his administrative remedy procedure supplement. In general, appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Further, LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A)(5) specifically limits judicial review of administrative decisions to "the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy request filed at the agency level." Accordingly, this argument is not properly before this court and we cannot address it. See Treece v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2015-1787 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/3/16) 2016 WL 3134439, *6 (unpublished).
Based on our thorough review of the administrative record, we conclude that the documentary evidence does not support Mr. Allen's claim. As an offender may not be compensated for an unsubstantiated loss, we find no error in the trial court's judgment affirming the Department's decision denying Mr. Allen's claim and dismissing his petition for judicial review with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the February 10, 2023 judgment of the trial court, which dismissed the petition for judicial review with prejudice, is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against petitioner, Myles Allen.
AFFIRMED.