Opinion
2016 CA 1560
06-02-2017
CARLOS LEWIS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Carlos Lewis David Wade Correctional Center Homer, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant In Proper Person Terri L. Cannon Legal Programs Department Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, Louisiana Counsel for Defendants/Appellees 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
No. 618776 Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding Carlos Lewis
David Wade Correctional Center
Homer, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant
In Proper Person Terri L. Cannon
Legal Programs Department
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, Louisiana Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND McCLENDON, JJ. McCLENDON, J.
Carlos Lewis, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (Department), appeals a judgment of the district court that dismissed his petition for judicial review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On January 30, 2013, Mr. Lewis filed a petition for judicial review in accordance with LSA-R.S. 15:1171, alleging that the Department was illegally deducting money from his prison banking account. With his petition, Mr. Lewis filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted by the district court on February 8, 2013. In response to the petition, the Department filed an answer denying that Mr. Lewis was entitled to any relief, together with the entire administrative record in Administrative Remedy Procedure #LSP 2012-2636 filed by Mr. Lewis. The petition for judicial review was assigned to a commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for a recommendation. After considering the record and law, the commissioner recommended that the Department's decision be affirmed and that Mr. Lewis's appeal be dismissed. On September 2, 2016, following its de novo review, the district court adopted the commissioner's recommendation and dismissed Mr. Lewis's suit with prejudice at his costs. Thereafter, Mr. Lewis filed the instant appeal.
Judicial review of an adverse decision by the Department is provided for in LSA-R.S. 15:1177. On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court. Goodin v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 11-0673 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So.3d 1076, 1078. Its review shall be confined to the record and 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. 15:1177A(5). The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings, or order that additional evidence be taken. LSA-R.S. 15:1177A(8). The court may reverse or modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error of law, (5) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, or (6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. LSA-R.S. 15:1177A(9). Goodin, 79 So.3d at 1079.
On review of the district court's judgment in a suit for judicial review under LSA-R.S. 15:1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. Goodin, 79 So.3d at 1079; McCoy v. Stalder, 99-1747 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/22/00), 770 So.2d 447, 450-51.
In his request for administrative remedy, Mr. Lewis alleged that in July 2012, his family sent him a $60.00 money order that was deposited into his prison account and that the Department illegally deducted $12.00. Mr. Lewis argued that LSA-R.S. 15:1186 only applies when an appeal is filed and that he never filed an appeal in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Mr. Lewis also contended that the money order from his family was a gift and not income, as used in LSA-R.S. 15:1186. He requested that the Department stop deducting 20% from his money orders and credit his account with all funds that were deducted. The Department denied Mr. Lewis's request for relief, stating in its first step response that "[t]he court order that was set up against your account by Headquarters on 7/25/12, will deduct 20% from each deposit to pay on that debt. Per Department Regulation B09-003, all permissible sources of funds will be used for debts, court orders and etc." After exhausting his administrative remedies, Mr. Lewis filed a petition for review.
Although Mr. Lewis stated he filed the appeal, he then stated he did not because he "was unable to receive any assistance from legal aid." The record indicates that the appeal was in docket number C607211.
Included in the record of the administrative proceedings is a copy of Department Regulation No. B-09-003.
Following a hearing, the commissioner rendered a report finding that Mr. Lewis "failed to present evidence in the administrative record, as required for review, to contradict the evidence relied on by the Department." The commissioner determined that Mr. Lewis failed to realize that the statutory provisions governing proceedings in forma pauperis cover all funds received by him and deposited into his account, stating that "[i]ncome does not mean money derived from employment in this case, but simply funds deposited into his account." The commissioner concluded:
Considering the limitations on this Court's review, limited to the administrative record submitted, and finding that there is no evidence in that record to support the Petitioner's claim that the Department should not consider funds received from family members as income, that the statutory provision relied upon doesn't govern in forma pauperis proceedings, and that there was no appeal filed. On the contrary, it is supported by its uncontradicted internal banking documents, the law, the department regulations, and the court's records. There is clearly no basis for the Petitioner's claims.Finding that the Department's decision was not arbitrary, manifestly erroneous or in violation of any of Mr. Lewis's rights, the commissioner recommended that the decision be affirmed. After Mr. Lewis filed a traversal to the commissioner's report and recommendation, the district court adopted the reasons of the commissioner and affirmed the Department's decision.
In his appeal, Mr. Lewis asserts that the district court erred in failing to find that income is only money derived from employment. He further argues that Department Regulation No. B-09-003 does not apply to proceedings in forma pauperis and that LSA-R.S. 15:1186 exclusively applies.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1186 provides, in pertinent part:
A. (2) If a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal or writ application in forma pauperis as authorized by Paragraph (A)(1), the prisoner shall still be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of twenty percent of the greater of the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account, or the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, notice of appeal, or writ application.Additionally, Department Regulation No. B-09-003, Section B.5, provides that "[a]ll or part of the offender's drawing, reserve or savings account, may ... upon order of a court, be expended for payment of court costs in a matter in which the offender is a party." The Pauper Order in this case ordered that Mr. Lewis pay $470.00, the initial filing fee, in the amounts as set by LSA-R.S. 15:1186, et seq., plus all costs accruing after the filing of the suit. The order further provided that following the payment of an initial filing fee, which in this case was $0.00, "prison officials shall be required to forward monthly payments from the plaintiff's inmate account until the entire filing fee is paid" and that Mr. Lewis "shall make monthly payments of 20 per cent of the preceding month's income credited to his prison account."
* * *
B. (1) After payment of the initial partial filing fee, as required by Paragraph (A)(2) of this Section, the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds ten dollars until the filing fees are paid. In no event shall the filing fee collected exceed the amount of fees permitted by statute.
After a thorough review, we agree with the district court and the commissioner. According to Black's Law Dictionary, "income" is the "money or other form of payment that one receives, usu. periodically, from employment, business, investments, royalties, gifts, and the like." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Further, nothing in Department Regulation No. B-09-003 suggests that it does not apply to pauper proceedings. The record supports the judgment of the district court, rendered in accordance with the recommendation of the commissioner. As such, we affirm the September 2, 2016 judgment of the district court, dismissing Mr. Lewis's petition for judicial review with prejudice. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Carlos Lewis.
AFFIRMED.