Opinion
NO. 2022 CA 0226
11-04-2022
Troy TEMPLET v. STATE, THROUGH LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Donna U. Grodner, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant, Troy Templet Jeff Landry, A.G., James L. Hilburn, A.A.G., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Jeannie C. Prudhomme, A.A.G., Lafayette, Louisiana, Wm. David Coffey, A.A.G., New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee, State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Donna U. Grodner, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant, Troy Templet
Jeff Landry, A.G., James L. Hilburn, A.A.G., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Jeannie C. Prudhomme, A.A.G., Lafayette, Louisiana, Wm. David Coffey, A.A.G., New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee, State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Louisiana State Penitentiary
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND WOLFE, JJ.
WOLFE, J.
In this case, we decide a narrow issue regarding whether the trial court erred in dismissing as abandoned Troy Templet's petition for damages allegedly sustained while Templet was incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. We reverse the trial court's judgment of abandonment and remand for further proceedings.
Troy Templet's surname was misspelled in the petition as "Templett." The record reflects that the correct spelling is "Templet."
BACKGROUND
For a full recitation of the facts of this case, we refer to a prior appeal opinion, Templet v. State through Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2019-0037 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/15/19), 290 So.3d 187, 189-190. Troy Templet, is a former inmate who filed this tort suit for damages on July 5, 2016, against the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), for personal injuries he sustained while housed at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Templet alleges he was injured on November 26, 2013, while directed to work in the rain on a Mississippi River ferry landing located on prison property. Templet was released from prison in January 2014, which was a few months after his injury and over two years before he filed this lawsuit. In the first appeal, we affirmed the trial court's November 19, 2018 judgment insofar as it granted DPSC's peremptory exception of prescription; however, we remanded the matter to the trial court to allow Templet the opportunity to amend his petition to remove the grounds of the exception, which he did on December 2, 2019.
After Templet amended his petition, DPSC filed an ex parte motion to dismiss Templet's suit on the grounds that the suit was abandoned pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(c), for failure to pay court costs within three years from when they were incurred. DPSC's motion was based upon the trial court's issuance of several orders allowing Templet to proceed in forma pauperis. The first order was signed on July 7, 2016, and a second order was signed on September 12, 2017, which also vacated an automatic stay imposed pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(a). Additionally, both pauper orders allowed Templet to proceed without paying court costs in advance or as they accrue. On April 23, 2021, the trial court signed a judgment granting DPSC's motion to dismiss for abandonment. Templet filed a motion for a pauper appeal of that judgment on May 7, 2021, which the trial court granted, while noting that the return date for the appeal would be set 30 days after compliance with La. R.S. 15:1186, et seq. Templet responded by filing yet another motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The trial court signed the appeal pauper orders on June 3 and 16, 2021, specifically ordering Templet to continue the litigation in compliance with the provisions contained in La. R.S. 15:1186. This court vacated the June 16, 2021 appellate pauper order in an unpublished opinion issued before this appeal was lodged. See Templett v. State Through Louisiana Department of Public Safety, 2021-0986 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/29/21), 2021 WL 5564007, * 1 (unpublished).
If a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal or writ application in forma pauperis , the prisoner shall still be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. La. R.S. 15:1186(A)(2).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In this appeal, Templet maintains that the three-year period for paying court costs or face dismissal for abandonment does not apply to him, since he is no longer a "prisoner" and is now proceeding as a "civilian" pauper under La. Code Civ. P. art. 5181. Generally, a trial court is afforded wide discretion in determining whether to grant the privilege to litigate in forma pauperis. Starks v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 95-1003 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/15/95), 666 So.2d 387, 394, writ denied, 96-0113 (La. 3/8/96), 669 So.2d 400. However, as to prisoners, it is well-settled that Louisiana's Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), La. R.S. 15:1181, et seq. , governs. Black v. David Wade Correctional Center, 50,813 (La. App. 2d Cir. 8/10/16), 200 So.3d 866, 868. The PLRA allows a prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis if the prisoner complies with the provisions of the PLRA. Id. at 868-869. In the event that a prisoner does not pay the full court costs at the time of the initial filing, then the prisoner has three years to comply once the fees have been incurred. La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(c).
DPSC argues that the fact that Templet was released from prison does not change his prisoner pauper status, because the PLRA specifically provides that the status as a "prisoner" is determined as of the time the cause of action arises, and that subsequent events, including release from custody, do not affect such status. See La. R.S. 15:1181(6). Further, DPSC maintains that the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that resolution of the question of status must be determined as of the time the cause of action arises, and the fact that the prisoner is no longer incarcerated has no effect on the matter. See Dailey v. Travis, 2004-0744 (La. 1/19/05), 892 So.2d 17, 20-21.
Jurisprudence interpreting the PLRA abandonment provision has consistently held that the provision in La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(c) promotes a legitimate state interest by curtailing meritless civil lawsuits by requiring indigent prisoners to pay the costs of litigation as they accrue. See Rhone v. Ward, 45,008 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2/3/10), 31 So.3d 591, 595, writ denied, 2010-0474 (La. 4/30/10), 34 So.3d 291. Knowing that the lawsuit may be deemed abandoned and dismissed for failure to pay costs, an indigent prisoner may consider the costs of litigation prior to filing a civil lawsuit. Therefore, the abandonment provision in La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(c) is supported by a rational basis reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. Black, 200 So.3d at 869. Moreover, we note that while prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts, the prisoner's right to sue for civil damages is not a fundamental constitutional right. Thus, a prisoner's access to the courts may be restricted when there is a rational basis for the restriction. Rhone, 31 So.3d at 595-596. The restriction in this case is dependent on the payment of filing fees and court costs, and the statute allows dismissal of such lawsuits, without prejudice, only in the event that the prisoner fails to pay the full amount of the costs or fees within three years from the date they are incurred.
Because this court vacated the trial court's most recent appellate pauper order, the record contains two general pauper orders allowing Templet to proceed without payment of court costs and without reference to the PLRA. Generally, an individual who is unable to pay court costs may proceed in forma pauperis without paying the costs in advance. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 5181. Article 5181 provides:
A. Except as provided in Paragraph B of this Article, an individual who is unable to pay the costs of court because of his poverty and lack of means may prosecute or defend a judicial proceeding in any trial or appellate court without paying the costs in advance or as they accrue or furnishing security therefor.
B. In the event any person seeks to prosecute a suit in a court of this state while incarcerated or imprisoned for the commission of a felony without paying the costs in advance as they accrue or furnishing security thereof, the court shall require such person to advance costs in accordance with the following schedule....
[Emphasis added.]
Templet argues that the implication of Article 5181 is if a person is not incarcerated, then the general civilian pauper statute controls. We find merit to this argument. Templet is no longer incarcerated and no longer has an inmate trust account; thus, he cannot comply with the provisions of La. R.S. 15:1186(A)(2) and (B)(1) requiring a percentage of the costs to be paid in monthly installments out of the inmate's account. Further, the record does not contain any evidence of Templet's inmate account. It would lead to an absurd result to require Templet, with no inmate account, to continue to be required to comply with the inmate pauper statute. When a law is clear it must be applied as written, but when the application of a statute would lead to absurd consequences, then the court must inquire into legislative intent. See Gloria's Ranch, L.L.C. v. Tauren Exploration, Inc., 2017-1518 (La. 6/27/18), 252 So.3d 431, 445. The Legislature clearly contemplated incarcerated or imprisoned individuals in the general pauper provisions contained in Article 5181. Templet was not incarcerated when he sought and received civilian pauper status on two different occasions; therefore, Templet may proceed under Article 5181(A) since he is not attempting to, nor has he ever, prosecuted his civil action while incarcerated. Consequently, we reverse the trial court's April 23, 2021 judgment dismissing Templet's lawsuit due to abandonment for failure to pay court costs pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1186.
DECREE
We find that the trial court erred in dismissing Troy Templet's personal injury action as abandoned. We reverse the April 23, 2021 judgment of dismissal. We also deny the Department of Public Safety and Correction's answer to appeal as moot. All appellate costs in the amount of $1,100.75 are assessed to the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
Defendant/Appellee, DPSC, filed an answer to the instant appeal seeking to reverse the trial court's ruling on September 12, 2017, that allowed Templet to proceed in forma pauperis without payment of court costs in contravention of the automatic stay mandated by La. R.S. 15:1186(B)(2)(a). Considering our ruling herein, the relief sought in the answer to appeal is denied as moot.