Opinion
NO. 2014 CA 1468
04-24-2015
JOSEPH H. REED, III v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Joseph H. Reed, III Rayville, LA Plaintiff-Appellant, In Proper Person William L. Kline Baton Rouge, LA Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 629,519
Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding Joseph H. Reed, III
Rayville, LA
Plaintiff-Appellant,
In Proper Person
William L. Kline
Baton Rouge, LA
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee,
State of Louisiana, Department of
Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. HIGGINBOTHAM, J.
Joseph H. Reed, III, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), appeals a Nineteenth Judicial District Court judgment that dismissed his suit on May 9, 2014, prior to service, without prejudice, and at his cost. The district court judgment was rendered after de novo review of the record and adoption of a Commissioner's Screening Report and Recommendation indicating that Reed's petition was frivolous and failed to state a cause of action or cognizable claim for relief. The Commissioner's report noted that Reed's complaints regarding DPSC's authority to require parole supervision pursuant to La. R.S.15:571.5 and the validity of the legislative good time parole supervision scheme have been raised and rejected numerous times by the courts of this State. Reed's appeal followed.
According to the record, Reed filed a motion for appeal in proper person, and was granted pauper status. The appeal was returnable to this Court on October 27, 2014, and Reed was given until November 2, 2014, to file his appeal brief. On November 18, 2014, a Notice of Abandonment of Appeal was sent to Reed notifying him that no appeal brief had been received and that his appeal would be dismissed if a brief on his behalf was not filed on or before December 18, 2014. On December 18, 2014, this Court received a copy of a letter addressed to the Commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, presumably sent in response to this Court's Notice of Abandonment. Hence, we will consider the letter as Reed's appellate brief. See Richardson v. North Oaks Hospital, 2011-1258 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/13/12), 91 So.3d 361, 363-64.
As in the proceedings below, Reed is pursuing this appeal in proper person. Reed's pro se appellate brief fails to comply with the applicable Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4. The brief does not contain any assignments of error or issues for review, no record references, no briefing of arguments confined to the issues on appeal, no district court ruling, and no jurisdictional statement. While the sanction to be imposed for a non-conforming brief is discretionary, this Court routinely considers non-compliant briefs when filed by pro se parties. See Sheridan v. Pride & Hope Ministry Family Support Services, 2013-1666 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/2/14), 147 So.3d 717, 719; Williams v. Fischer, 439 So.2d 1111, 1112 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983). Thus, in light of Reed's pro se status wherein he is representing himself in this case, we will attempt to discern the substance of his arguments and treat them as though properly raised.
The content of Reed's letter with attachments indicates that he is dissatisfied with the Commissioner's report and recommendation that his petition be dismissed as frivolous, and the conclusion that he did not make any cognizable claim for relief regarding DPSC's authority to require parole supervision. After a thorough review of the record and the Commissioner's Screening Report and Recommendation, we find no error in the district court's judgment that adopted the written recommendation of the Commissioner. We further find that the Commissioner's report adequately discusses the factual and procedural background of this case and provides an excellent analysis of the applicable law before recommending that Reed's petition be dismissed. Jurisprudential precedent and statutory authority clearly control the disposition of this case, and the issues raised involve no more than an application of well-settled law to recurring situations.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court's judgment and issue this summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(2), (4), (5), and (6). All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against plaintiff-appellant, Joseph H. Reed, III.
Although Reed filed this appeal in forma pauperis, since we find no merit in his appeal, the appellate costs may be assessed against him. See
AFFIRMED.
Richardson, 91 So.3d at 365 n. 5.