Opinion
NUMBER 2015 CA 1958
09-19-2016
David BROWN v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
David Brown, Angola, LA, Pro Se-Appellant Plaintiff-David Brown Terri L. Cannon, Angola, LA, Attorney for Appellee Defendant-Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
David Brown, Angola, LA, Pro Se-Appellant Plaintiff-David Brown
Terri L. Cannon, Angola, LA, Attorney for Appellee Defendant-Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: WELCH, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
WELCH, J.
David Brown ("Petitioner"), a death row inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("the Department") at Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP") in Angola, Louisiana, appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for judicial review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
On January 4, 2012, the posted policy governing personal property (LSP-USOPP #028) was enacted by prison officials resulting in death row inmates no longer being authorized to participate in hobby craft activities. The petitioner claims that on January 31, 2012, employees of the LSP improperly confiscated all hobby craft items in the possession of death row inmates, and, to date, these items have not been returned.
After exhausting his administrative remedies, the petitioner filed a petition for judicial review. The petitioner sought the immediate return of his hobby craft items, or, in the alternative, full reimbursement for the cost of all hobby craft items taken. The petitioner also requested injunctive relief.
The Department filed an answer asserting a general denial that the petitioner was entitled to any type of relief. As required by La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(3), the Department's answer attached a copy of the record of the proceeding under review. Contained in the record of the administrative proceedings was a copy of 2012 La. Acts, No. 799 (effective date June 13, 2012), which enacted La. R.S. 14:402(D)(10). Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:402(D)(10) defines "contraband" in penal institutions to include "[a]ny sketch, painting, drawing or other pictorial rendering produced in whole or in part by a capital offender, unless authorized by the warden of the institution." The petitioner filed a self-styled "Rebuttal" to the Department's answer, wherein the petitioner challenged, for the first time, the constitutionality of 2012 La. Acts, No. 799.
The petition for judicial review was assigned to a commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for a recommendation. At the hearing on the matter, the commissioner denied the petitioner the opportunity to present arguments challenging the constitutionality of 2012 La. Acts, No. 799. After considering the record and law, the commissioner recommended that the Department's decision be affirmed and the petitioner's claims be denied. Thereafter, following its de novo review of the record, the district court adopted the commissioner's recommendation and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner filed the instant appeal seeking review of the district court's judgment dismissing his claim as well as the commissioner's refusal to consider his constitutional challenge of 2012 La. Acts, No. 799.
Lost property claims by inmates are matters of prison administration or conditions of confinement that are governed by La. R.S. 15:1177 of Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure ("CARP"). See Vincent v. State, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2002–2444 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/6/03), 858 So.2d 494, 497. Accordingly, 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 abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
(f) Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by firsthand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.
The statute is clear. The district court is only authorized to intervene in the administrative decisions of the Department only if an inmate's substantial rights have been violated. Here, the petitioner asserts that the taking of his hobby craft items without a hearing is a violation of the Due Process Clause. After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the reasoning of the district court and the commissioner. In his report, the commissioner, citing the first step response, noted that the hobby craft items seized were "contraband" under the institutional posted policy, LSP-USOPP #028, dated January 4, 2012; therefore, the petitioner did not have a valid right to said hobby craft items at the time it was inventoried by prison officials. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has indicated that inmates do not have a constitutional or substantial right to any particular form of housing classification, job classification, or recreational hobby craft. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483–484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2299–2300, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) ; Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–229, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538–2540, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976).
In his brief to this court, the petitioner asserts for the first time that his 4th Amendment rights were violated by the inventory of his hobby craft items. However, we cannot consider contentions raised for the first time in this court which were not pleaded in the court below and which the district court has not addressed. Boudreaux v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 2001–1329 (La. 2/26/02), 815 So.2d 7, 9.
--------
Further, we find no error in the refusal to consider the petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of 2012 La. Acts, No. 799. In the context of a CARP matter, the district court functions as an appellate court when it reviews the Department's final decision. See La. R.S. 15:1177(A) ; Carter v. Cain, 2001–2841 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/27/02), 828 So.2d 1226, 1228, writ denied, 2002–3228 (La. 1/30/04), 865 So.2d 64 ; Madison v. Ward, 2000–2842 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/3/02), 825 So.2d 1245, 1255. A proper challenge to the constitutionality of a statute should first be brought before the district court sitting as a trial court, not as an appellate court. See Lay v. Scott, 98–2615 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/4/01), 809 So.2d 440, 441. Therefore, if the petitioner wishes to raise a constitutional challenge to 2012 La. Acts, No. 799, he should file suit in district court. See Carter, 828 So.2d at 1228.
As such, we affirm the judgment of the district court and issue this summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2—16.2(A)(2), (5), and (6). Costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, David Brown.