Opinion
NO. 2012 CA 0973
02-15-2013
TORY BOATNER v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS
TORY BOATNER ANGOLA, LA PRO SE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WILLIAM KLINE BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the
19th Judicial District Court
in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 607,091
Honorable William A. Morvant, Judge
TORY BOATNER
ANGOLA, LA
PRO SE
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
WILLIAM KLINE
BATON ROUGE, LA
ATTORNEY FOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY &
CORRECTIONS
BEFORE: KUHN, PETTIGREW, AND McDONALD, JJ.
PETTIGREW , J.
In this case, petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"), filed a request for relief pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177, seeking judicial review of the final agency decision rendered under Disciplinary Board Appeal No. LSP-2011-0203-W. In said case, the Disciplinary Board ruled that petitioner was guilty of violating Rule 30W (General Prohibited Behavior), for which he was sentenced to a custody change to extended lockdown. Petitioner was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $13.00 for chicken that he allegedly stole. Thereafter, DPSC upheld the Disciplinary Board's ruling. Petitioner appealed DPSC's ruling to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, alleging a lack of evidence.
On December 14, 2011, the Commissioner issued a report in favor of DPSC and against petitioner, recommending that petitioner's suit be dismissed, prior to service pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1178, with prejudice. The Commissioner noted that the penalty assessed to petitioner did not involve a forfeiture of good time or constitute an atypical deprivation of a "substantial right" of petitioner as required by La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9).
Following a de novo review of the record herein, including the traversal by petitioner and the Commissioner's Report, the trial court rendered judgment on January 18, 2012, dismissing petitioner's suit for failure to raise a "substantial right" violation. This appeal by petitioner followed. After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment by summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules--Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2A(5), (6), and (7). All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against petitioner.