NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

CRAIN, J.

Maurice Gibbs, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment as amended.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed a lengthy request for administrative remedy containing allegations of numerous instances of alleged mistreatment during his incarceration at multiple facilities. Those allegations include, but are not limited to, the following complaints: (1) petitioner was transferred from the Louisiana State Penitentiary (Angola) to David Wade Correctional Center as retaliation for his repeated complaints about Angola's court access system and food service operation; (2) petitioner was denied a special diet for high cholesterol, and the prison food was not properly cooked, was prepared in unsanitary conditions, and prison staff converted inmate food for their own use; (3) prison officials pursued baseless disciplinary charges against him; (4) prison officials obstructed his use of the inmate accounts system, demanded that he sign a dismissal of another administrative claim, and inaccurately represented that his medical conditions had resolved; and (5) prison officials at Wade Correctional Center forced him to stand outside in cold weather while wearing a short-sleeve jumpsuit.

The request for administrative relief was rejected because it contained multiple complaints, and petitioner was advised of the rejection and reason therefore by a notice from the Department. Petitioner then filed the present proceeding seeking judicial review of the rejection of his request pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1177. The petition was screened in accordance with Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1178, and the Commissioner found that the Department properly rejected the complaint because it did not comply with the Department's regulations. The Commissioner recommended that the petition for judicial review be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court adopted the Commissioner's report and dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Petitioner's claims are governed by the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure (CARP) set forth at Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1171-1179. Judicial review of an adverse decision by the Department is authorized by Section 1177, which provides that the court may reverse or modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error of law, (5) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, or (6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9); Victorian v. Stalder, 99-2260 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/14/00), 770 So.2d 382, 384-85 (en banc.)

Pursuant to authority granted by Section 1171, the Department adopted and implemented an administrative remedy procedure for receiving, hearing, and disposing of inmate complaints and grievances that is set forth in Section 325 of Title 22, Part I of the Louisiana Administrative Code. Inmates are required to use this procedure before filing a suit in federal or state court. La. Admin. Code 22, Pt. I, § 325D.1; Dickens v. Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, 11-0176 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/14/11), 77 So.3d 70, 74. A request for relief is initially screened and can be rejected for certain enumerated reasons that must be noted on the CARP form in the event of a rejection. La. Admin. Code 22, Pt. I, § 3251.1. One of the enumerated reasons for rejection of a request is that the "offender has requested a remedy for more than one incident (a multiple complaint)." La. Admin. Code 22, Pt. I, § 3251.1.g.

Petitioner argues that his request was not a multiple complaint but, rather, a single complaint of a retaliatory transfer supported by a "chronology of events from which the retaliatory transfer could be inferred." While an inmate may prove the intent to retaliate through a chronology of events from which that intent may be plausibly inferred,1 petitioner's request for administrative relief cannot reasonably be construed as a series of events presented for the single purpose of inferring an intent to retaliate against him. The complaints range from the condition of his food at Angola to being subjected to cold weather at Wade Correctional Center, all without any attempt to logically relate these varied events to his transfer. The Commissioner correctly described the request as "disjointed," and the Department was not arbitrary or capricious in rejecting it. See Robinson v. Cain, 05-2299 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/3/06) (unpublished), 2006 WL 3107740, writ denied, 06-3023 (La. 10/5/07), 964 So.2d 381 (inmate's administrative request contained multiple complaints and was properly rejected).

Petitioner also assigns as error the trial court's dismissal of his petition on the basis of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Department admitted in its answer that he exhausted his available administrative remedies. We first note that a court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by the consent of the parties. Bolton v. Dependable Glass Works, Inc., 11-1998 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/17/12), 102 So.3d 826, 829. However, for the reasons set forth below, the more appropriate basis for the dismissal of the petition is its failure to state a cause of action.

The administrative action under review is the Department's rejection of the petitioner's request for administrative remedy because it did not comply with the Department's rules and regulations for the submission of a request. When seeking review of a rejection of an initial request for administrative relief, the issue before the court is whether the Department had proper grounds to reject the request. Robinson, 05-2299 at 2 (Appendix A, Commissioner's Recommendation). For the reasons previously provided, the Department had proper grounds to reject the petitioner's request. We further find that the rejection did not prejudice any substantial rights of the petitioner but merely required him to revise and resubmit the request in conformity with the applicable administrative rules. Based upon these findings, we hold that the petition fails to state a cause of action, and we affirm the dismissal of the claims on that basis. See La. R.S. 15:1177A(9); Plaisance v. Louisiana State Penitentiary, 10-1249 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/11/11), 57 So.3d 593, 595. Petitioner's remedy is to re-file a request in conformity with the applicable administrative rules. Therefore, no amendment to the petition in this matter could cure the deficiency, so the petition should be dismissed with prejudice. See La. Code of Civ. Pro. art. 934; Ferrington v. Louisiana Bd. of Parole, 03-2093 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/25/04), 886 So.2d 455, 459, writ denied, 04-2555 (La. 6/24/05), 904 So.2d 741.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as amended to dismiss the matter with prejudice. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Maurice Gibbs.

AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.