 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rhone v. Lewis6/14/2002
Inmate, Alfonso Rhone, brought a personal injury action against several officials at the David Wade Correctional Center (DWCC) for violations of various constitutional rights. Using its screening powers under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the trial court found that Rhone had not stated a cognizable claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed his claim. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.
FACTS
This is an action in tort against the officials of DWCC, but we also note that the proper defendant for such actions is the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC). See La. R.S. 15:1179. In addition to his tort claims, Rhone brought suit alleging denial of his constitutional rights of religious freedom, equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment. Rhone is a member of the Nuwaubu Religious group which requires that he adhere to a strict diet of "green, leafy, and starchless vegetables." Rhone filed numerous complaints against the officials at DWCC for allegedly failing to feed him or trying to force him to eat meals in contravention of his religious faith. Rhone asserts that each of his administrative complaints, filed between October 25, 1999, through July 26, 2000, were either denied or ignored. Rhone blamed DWCC officials for his dramatic weight loss of twenty (20) to fifty (50) pounds and accused them of trying to commit murder by starving him.
Rhone then brought this tort action which the trial court found was governed by the PLRA , La. R.S. 15:1181-1190. The court then summarily dismissed his claim because it found that Rhone had failed to state a cognizable cause of action.
DISCUSSION
The trial court screened the filing of this suit pursuant to the PLRA , which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
La. R.S. 15:1181(2): "Civil action with respect to prison conditions" or "prisoner suit" means any civil proceeding with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison, but does not include post conviction relief or habeas corpus proceeding challenging the fact or duration in prison.
The act further provides in La. R.S. 15:1184(B) that: the court, on its own motion or on the motion of a party, shall dismiss any prisoner suit if the court is satisfied that the action is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a cause of action, seeks monetary relief, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If a court makes a determination to dismiss the suit based on content, or lack of underlying claim without first requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court shall review for docketing if feasible or, in any event as soon as practicable after docketing, a petition in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity. On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the petition, or any portion of the petition, if the petition is frivolous, is malicious, or fails to state a cause of action, seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In Pope v. State, 99-2559 (La. 6/29/01), 792 So.2d 713, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that original jurisdiction of all tort suits was vested in the district courts. The Pope case revealed that there are two separate tracks for redress of prisoner grievances under the law. The DOC used the Corrections Administrative Review Procedure (CARP), La. R.S. 15:1171-1180 to create an in house system for handling grievances that arise out of prison administration. Under CARP, the proper
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|