Filed: Jun. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2015
Summary: NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PETTIGREW , J. Petitioner, Kenan Allen, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"), appeals a judgment affirming DPSC's final agency decision rendered under Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP") No. LSP-2013-2660 and dismissing the claims alleged in his petition for judicial review. For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION Allen filed the instant ARP at the prison where he was incarcerated chall
Summary: NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PETTIGREW , J. Petitioner, Kenan Allen, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"), appeals a judgment affirming DPSC's final agency decision rendered under Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP") No. LSP-2013-2660 and dismissing the claims alleged in his petition for judicial review. For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION Allen filed the instant ARP at the prison where he was incarcerated challe..
More
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
PETTIGREW, J.
Petitioner, Kenan Allen, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"), appeals a judgment affirming DPSC's final agency decision rendered under Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP") No. LSP-2013-2660 and dismissing the claims alleged in his petition for judicial review. For the following reasons, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
Allen filed the instant ARP at the prison where he was incarcerated challenging the denial of his request to have the lockdown review board recommend his removal from extended lockdown custody. According to the record, Allen was denied release from extended lockdown because he was an escape risk and because of the nature of the original reasons for the lockdown; namely, a rule violation and disciplinary board action. His request was reviewed and denied at the first and second steps of the ARP. Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Allen filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. The matter was then referred to a commissioner1 for review pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1188, who recommended to the district court judge that DPSC's decision be affirmed and Allen's petition be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to raise a substantial right violation and failure to state a cause of action for any relief. Allen timely filed a traversal of that recommendation, reiterating his arguments to the court. On September 19, 2014, a judgment was signed, affirming DPSC's decision and dismissing Allen's petition for judicial review, without prejudice. This appeal followed.
In recommending that DPSC's decision be affirmed, the commissioner offered the following findings:
[Allen] has alleged no facts to support a finding that he is being deprived of due process, or that he is entitled to a particular type of process under the Constitution. . . .
Therefore, with regard to the decision of the administration to reject this appeal of the lockdown review board, this Court is required to affirm it, as it is in accord with promulgated rules and does not violate any law or constitutional right. Further, this complaint raises no substantial right violation that would authorize this Court to intervene in the ordinary disciplinary process of the prison administration, and thus, this court has no authority to grant any relief sought.
Therefore, considering the claim, the Petitioner states no substantial right violation and thus, the claim must be dismissed. Alternatively, he states no cause of action for which any relief is available.
After a thorough review of the record, in consideration of Allen's arguments on appeal, and applying the relevant law and jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the district court in adopting, as its own, the commissioner's report. We, therefore, affirm the September 19, 2014 judgment of the district court and find that the district court's reasons for judgment, as set forth in the commissioner's recommendation, adequately explain the decision. All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against petitioner, Kenan Allen.
AFFIRMED.
