 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. Ward8/16/2002
Plaintiff, Kevin Peterson, filed what he styled as a habeas corpus action against certain prison officials. The trial court summarily dismissed with prejudice. We affirm.
Facts
Plaintiff, Kevin Peterson, is currently incarcerated at David Wade Correctional Center ("DWCC") in Claiborne Parish. On January 28, 2002, he filed a petition styled as an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Second Judicial District Court in Claiborne Parish. Peterson alleged that in September 2001 he was moved from the David Wade facility to Forcht Wade Correntional Center ("FWCC") in Caddo Parish so that he could enter the Phoenix Mental Health Program. Thereafter, he claims that in retaliation for his filing complaints against prison officials he was discharged from the Phoenix Program, transferred back to David Wade Correctional Center and placed in "extended lockdown". Peterson asked the court to order that he be released from lockdown, transferred back to the Forcht Wade facility in Caddo Parish and enrolled in the Phoenix Program.
Peterson included with his petition copies of administrative complaints filed with the Department of Corrections ("DOC") on January 8, 2002, and January 22, 2002, along with letters written in this same time period to DOC employees. As stated, this petition was filed in the district court on January 28, 2002. Peterson did not allege that the complaints filed with DOC had been resolved through its administrative remedy procedures.
In a written opinion dated February 5, 2002, the trial court stated:
. . . he court can conclude that the petitioner's claims are subject to the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act. LSA-R.S. 15:1171-1180 (CARPA) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, LSA-R.S. 15:1181-1190 (PLRA). Both statutes impose an obligation on the court to review the petition prior to the Clerk of Court's taking any action on the petition. See LSA-R.S. 15:1178 and 15:1188. Both statutes require exhaustion of administrative remedies as a condition precedent to filing suit in district court. See LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A) and 15:1184(A).
. . . he court finds that petitioner has made an effort to initiate the administrative remedy procedure. However, considering the dates of the grievances, January 8, 2002 (Ex. A) and January 22, 2002 (Ex. D), and the date this petition was received by the Claiborne Parish Clerk of Court (January 28, 2002), the court finds that there has not been sufficient time for petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Petitioner has asserted this claim, that he should be placed at FWCC in the Phoenix Mental Health Program, in a petition asking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus . . . . As his placement is an institutional decision, the proper method for asserting his claim is through the provisions of the CARPA and the PLRA, specifically following the administrative remedies available to petitioner. If petitioner concludes that he has been aggrieved by the actions of the prison officials within the administrative remedy procedures . . . he may seek judicial review as provided in LSA-R.S. 15:1177(A), in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.
Discussion
La.R.S. 15:1171-78, or CARPA, provides that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections and each sheriff may adopt an administrative remedy procedure at each of their correctional institutions for receiving, hearing, and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by an adult or juvenile offender while the offender is within their custody or under their supervision. La.R.S. 15:1171 (A) & (B). The types of complaints and grievances include, but are not limited to, any and
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|