Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

September 21, 2018

Avis Williams
v.
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

          Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court, In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana Docket No. 651625 Sec 24 The Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding

          Avis Williams, Appellant Center Plaintiff -Pro Se.

          Jonathan R. Vining Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

          Before: Pettigrew, Welch, and Chutz, J J.

          WELCH, J.

         The appellant, Avis Williams, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC") and housed at Rayburn Correctional Center, appeals a judgment of the district court that dismissed his petition for judicial review. For the following reasons, we affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Williams appeals a district court judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review of the DPSC Disciplinary Board Appeal number WNC-2016-129. The disciplinary action that is the subject of WNC-2016-129 addresses an incident that occurred on April 25, 2016, wherein Williams attempted to engage in a "nonprofessional" relationship with a DPSC employee.[1] The DPSC placed Williams in administrative segregation pending investigation. On May 3, 2016, the DPSC charged Williams with general prohibited behavior, a violation of Rule #3 0(D) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Inmates.

         On May 6, 2016, the DPSC deferred Williams's hearing due to him "being in transit."[2] Thereafter, following a hearing held on May 11, 2016, the Disciplinary Board found Williams guilty of general prohibited behavior, a violation of Rule #30(D).[3] The Board sentenced Williams to a custody change[4]and imposed a twelve-week loss of canteen privileges. Williams appealed the disciplinary matter within the DPSC in accordance with the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure ("CARP"), La. R.S. 15:1171-79, arguing that the 72-hour rule was violated.[5] The DPSC denied his appeal.

         After exhausting his administrative remedies, Williams filed a petition for judicial review of the DPSC's Disciplinary Board decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.[6] The case was assigned to a commissioner for evaluation and to make a recommendation to the district court judge.[7] Williams argued that DPSC violated its own rules and procedures for disciplinary actions by not affording him a disciplinary hearing within 72 hours of his placement in administrative lockdown, resulting in a violation of his right to due process. The DPSC answered, denying Williams's claims and specifically stating that Williams failed to show that the DPSC was clearly wrong in upholding his conviction for a Rule #3 0(D) violation.

         The Commissioner ordered the matter remanded to the DPSC for an expansion of the record to include the audio recording of the disciplinary hearing and stayed the case for 30 days pending the supplement of the record. Thereafter, the Commissioner issued a rule to show cause, ordering the DPSC to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Commissioner's order to supplement the administrative record with the audio recordings of Williams's disciplinary hearing. According to the minutes contained in the record, the show cause hearing never occurred; further, it is not clear from the record whether the audio recordings were ever supplemented to the administrative record by the DPSC

         Thereafter, the Commissioner issued his recommendation, finding that Williams was not entitled to relief because he had alleged no substantial right that was violated. The Commissioner did not specifically address Williams's contention on administrative appeal that his due process rights were violated when he did not receive a disciplinary hearing within 72 hours of being placed in administrative segregation.

         The district court signed a judgment affirming the administrative decision and dismissing Williams's petition for judicial review.

         Williams has appealed from that judgment, arguing that the DPSC violated its own rules and procedures for disciplinary actions by not affording him a disciplinary hearing within 72 hours of his placement in administrative ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.