 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rhone v. Lewis6/14/2002
jurisdiction for review of administrative decisions is the Nineteenth Judicial District. However, because Louisiana Constitution Article V, § 16(A) states that the district courts are the courts of original jurisdiction for all tort suits, the Pope court held that CARP was unconstitutional as applied to tort actions, and that the proper jurisdiction for tort suits arising out of prison administration was the parish in which the prison is situated. The PLRA was amended in 2002 to reflect this ruling. See La. R.S. 15:1184(F). Consequently, a suit brought by a prisoner in tort was not subject to the administrative review proceedings under the Corrections Administrative Review Procedure (CARP), thus giving a prisoner a direct line to the district courts for redress of tort causes of action. Nonetheless, the Pope court acknowledged that the PLRA was enacted to curtail baseless or nuisance suits by prisoners:
La. R.S. 15:1188(A) of the PLRA allows the court to screen the petition and to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the petition, or any portion of the petition, if the petition is frivolous, is malicious, 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. Id. at 720, n.16.
In the instant case, the trial court reviewed Rhone's petition and found that it failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief could be granted. Rhone's principal claims centered around DWCC's alleged denial of his religious rights by failing to provide him with a diet of "starchless leafy green vegetables" required by the Nuwaubu religion. Rhone attached a copy of the required list of food items that he was to eat according to his religious beliefs, and on that list were white potatoes and an assortment of legumes or beans. Under the loosest interpretation of "starchless and green, leafy vegetables" none of these items could fulfill the criteria Rhone alleges he must follow. His claim of needing a specific diet fails facially on the basis of the evidence that the plaintiff presented to support his claim. Consequently, we cannot say that the trial court committed manifest error in finding that Rhone had failed to state a cognizable cause of action for which relief could be granted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
|