Opinion
2022 CA 0504.
11-04-2022
Jason Jarrell SPIKES v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS.
WELCH, J.
Jason Jarrell Spikes, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("the Department") and confined to the Rayburn Correctional Center, appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing, without prejudice, his petition for judicial review of administrative remedy procedure ("ARP") number RCC-2021-132, for lack of jurisdiction due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm in accordance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B).
Spikes has filed two motions with this Court—an "Application to Appeal" filed on June 11, 2022 and the "Response from the 19th Judicial District Court" filed on July 6, 2022. Essentially, those motions seek the same relief that he seeks on appeal. As we have found no merit to this appeal, we find Spikes is not entitled to the relief requested in those motions. Therefore, we deny his "Application to Appeal" and his "Response from the 19th Judicial District Court."
On December 8, 2020, December 30, 2020, January 11, 2021, January 25, 2021, and February 23, 2021, Spikes was issued disciplinary reports on the basis that his hair and facial hair were not in compliance with the correctional center's grooming policy, that he had been ordered to bring his hair and facial hair into compliance with those policies, and that he had refused to comply. According to Spikes, on the night of February 26, 2021 or early in the morning of February 27, 2021, prison guards came to his cell, placed his hands and feet in restraints, walked him to the lobby, placed him in a "strap down chair," and forcibly gave him a haircut. Spikes utilized an ARP to complain about the haircut that he was given, claiming that it violated his religious beliefs. The ARP was received by the Department on March 2, 2021, assigned ARP number RCC-2021-132, and placed on "backlog." See LAC 22:I.325(F)(3)(a)(ix) and Vincent v. Stalder, 2004-1750 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/23/05), 923 So.2d 108, 109-110.
On February 3, 2022, Spikes commenced the instant proceeding seeking judicial review of ARP number RCC-2021-132. On February 16, 2022, the commissioner of the district court assigned to the matter reviewed the petition and found that Spikes' petition failed to comply with the district court's local rules, which required that he file written proof that he had exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to ARP number RCC-2021-132 in accordance with La. R.S. 15:1172 and 1184. Therefore, the commissioner issued an order that Spikes submit such proof and informed him that the failure to do so would result in dismissal of the suit.
See La. R.S. 13:711 and 713.
In response, Spikes submitted documentation from the Department establishing that, on February 23, 2022, the Department accepted ARP number RCC-2021-132 and informed Spikes that a response would be issued within 40 days of that date. Thereafter, on March 15, 2022, the commissioner issued a screening recommendation to the district court in accordance with La. R.S. 15:1178 and 1184-88. Therein, the commissioner determined that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review ARP number RCC-2021-132 because Spikes failed to complete or exhaust the administrative process prior to instituting suit, i.e., his suit was filed prematurely. Therefore, in accordance with La. R.S. 15:1178 the commissioner recommended that the suit be dismissed. Thereafter, Spikes offered additional documentation from the Department setting forth that ARP number RCC-2021-132 had not been yet been exhausted, as it had not been answered at the second step.
On April 11, 2022, the district court signed a judgment adopting the recommendation of the commissioner and dismissing, without prejudice, Spikes' petition for judicial review of ARP number RCC-2021-132 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with La. R.S. 15:1172(C). From this judgment, Spikes has appealed.
The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure ("CARP"), set forth in La. R.S. 15:1171-1179, provides that the Department may adopt an ARP for receiving, hearing, and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by offenders against the state, the governor, the Department or its employees. The adopted procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling the complaints and grievances to which they apply. La. R.S. 15:1171.
The rules and procedures promulgated by the Department are set forth in LAC 22:1.325. Pursuant to these rules, offenders must exhaust a two-step ARP before they can proceed with a suit in federal or state court. See La. R.S. 15:1176; LAC 22:I.325(F)(3)(a)(viii). If an offender fails to exhaust available administrative remedies, the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim. Dickens v. Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Women, 2011-0176 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/14/11), 77 So.3d 70, 74-75.
When an offender has initiated a request for the first step of an ARP, the warden is required to respond within 40 days from the date the request is received at the first step, using the first step response. See LAC 22:I.325(J)(1)(a)(ii). An offender who is not satisfied with the warden's first step response may proceed to the second step ARP and appeal to the secretary of the Department. LAC 22:I.325(J)(l)(b)(i). The final decision of the secretary (or his designee) shall be made and the offender shall be sent a response within 45 days from the date the request is received at the second step, utilizing the second step response. LAC 22:I.325(J)(1)(b)(ii). No more than ninety days from the initiation to completion of the process shall elapse, unless an extension has been granted. Absent such an extension, expiration of the response time limits shall entitle the offender to move on to the next step in the process. LAC 22:I.325(J)(1)(c).
However, if an offender submits multiple requests during the review of a previous request, they will be logged and set aside for handling at such time as the request currently in the system has been exhausted at the second step or until time limits to proceed from the first step to the second step have lapsed. LAC 22:I.325(F)(3)(a)(ix). This regulation applies to situations where a request for relief has been accepted at the initial step of the ARP and a distinct, subsequent request for relief is filed. Vincent, 923 So.2d at 109-110. Additionally, the time limits provided for the defendants to respond to an offender's request for relief do not operate to prevent the defendants from backlogging multiple requests for administrative relief, and the time periods provided by the Department's ARP apply only to claims for relief accepted and processed by the Department. Vincent, 923 So.2d at 111. Further, the Department's regulation regarding backlogging of multiple claims is a valid and reasonable exercise of the authority granted to the Department. Id.
In this case, the record reflects that ARP number RCC-2021-132 filed by Spikes was received by the Department on March 2, 2021, and it was placed on "backlog." On February 23, 2022, the Department accepted ARP number RCC-2021-132 and informed Spikes that a response would be issued within 40 days of that date. However, Spikes had already filed this petition for judicial review of that ARP on February 3, 2022—prior to the exhaustion of his administrative remedies. Consequently, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review ARP number RCC-2021-132 and correctly dismissed Spikes' petition for judicial review of ARP number RCC-2021-132, without prejudice. For all of the above and foregoing reasons, the April 11, 2022 judgment of the district court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff/appellant, Jason Jarrell Spikes.