Jamal Taylor v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 CA 0095

JAMAL TAYLOR

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered.
NOV 1- 2 2020

Appealed from the 1911 Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Suit No. 680260, Sec. 24

The Honorable Donald R. Johnson, Judge Presiding

Jamal Taylor Plaintiff/Appellee
Rayburn Correctional Center In Proper Person
Angie, Louisiana

Elizabeth B. Desselle Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public
Safety & Corrections

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

r''

LANIER, J.

This is an appeal from a trial court judgment ordering the appellant,

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( LDPSC) to pay costs

associated with a petition for a writ of mandamus which was filed by the appellee,

Jamal Taylor. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 2- 16. 1( B) of

the Uniform Rules of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal and affirm the trial court.

Mr. Taylor, an inmate in the custody of LDPSC, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus on March 1, 2019, claiming that LDPSC had not timely responded to

his application for an administrative remedy procedure ( ARP).' Mr. Taylor was

housed at Winn Correctional Center ( Winn) at the time, which had contracted with

LDPSC to house its inmates. Mr. Taylor requested that LDPSC " produce the

required administrative responses and documents that will exhaust his

administrative remedies," and that all costs of the proceeding be assessed to

LDPSC.

On April 24, 2019, LDPSC filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Taylor' s petition

for failure to exhaust all administrative remedies. LDPSC further argued that Mr.

Taylor' s petition was premature since LDPSC received the ARP on February 7,

2019, and the 90 -day delay to respond had not yet lapsed as of the date of the
2
petition' s filing.

At a hearing on May 21, 2019 before the 19th JDC, it was established that

LDPSC had responded to Mr. Taylors' ARP on April 30, 2019, and that Mr.

1 The nature of Mr. Taylor' s complaint was that he was denied time credit for a Certified
Treatment and Rehabilitation Programs class in which he participated.

2 Department Regulation No. B- 05- 005 applies to LDPSC offenders housed in a non-LDPSC
facility. The regulation states, in pertinent part:

A [ LDPSC] offender housed in a non-[ LDPSC] facility with a complaint that
relates to time computation, requests for transfer, or transitional work program
requests should submit his grievance to [ LDPSC] Headquarters Internal Affairs.
A representative from Headquarters Internal Affairs shall respond to the offender
within 90 days. If the offender is not satisfied with the response, he may file suit
in the 19th Judicial District Court.

2

Taylor had received a copy of that response. LDPSC filed a notice of compliance

with the trial court, attaching its response to Mr. Taylor' s ARP, which granted the

relief that he had requested.

The Commissioner of the 19' JDC issued a screening report on September

19, 2019, acknowledging LDPSC' s resolution of Mr. Taylor' s ARP request and

declaring the issue before the trial court moot. The Commissioner recommended

that the petition for a writ of mandamus be dismissed without prejudice at

LDPSC' s costs since the response to the ARP was issued after the petition for a

writ of mandamus was filed. The trial court signed a judgment that adopted the

Commissioner' s recommendations and dismissed the petition for a writ of

mandamus without prejudice at LDPSC' s cost. LDPSC appealed the portion of

judgment that cast it with costs.

This court has very recently issued an opinion in Terry Reed v. Louisiana

Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2020- 0091 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

11/ 2/ 20), So. 3d, which contained a very similar fact pattern to the instant

case. In Reed, the plaintiff was an inmate of LDPSC housed at Winn when he fled

an ARP due to an alleged computation error of his release date. The plaintiff

subsequently fled a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel LDPSC to respond

to his ARP in order to exhaust his administrative remedies. LDPSC fled a motion

to dismiss the petition, arguing that the plaintiff had not yet exhausted his

administrative remedies,
but the plaintiff then filed a motion for voluntary

dismissal of the petition, claiming that LDPSC had complied with his request.

At a hearing before the trial court, the petition for a writ of mandamus was

declared moot due to LDPSC' s compliance with the plaintiffs request. The

Commissioner recommended that the plaintiff' s petition be dismissed as moot and

that LDPSC be cast with costs. LDPSC appealed the judgment, arguing the trial

court was in error to cast it with costs.

3

We found in Reed that the trial court has broad discretion in how it decides

to apportion the costs of the proceeding among the parties, and the trial court may

apportion those costs in whichever proportion it deems equitable, even against a

party who prevailed on the merits. We further note in the Commissioner' s report

in Reed that it was observed by the Commissioner that numerous mandamus suits

have been filed in which LDPSC timely responded to the ARP, but the petitioner

was justified because Winn took several months to forward the ARP to LDPSC for

review.

In the instant case, Winn allegedly received Mr. Taylor' s ARP on December

105 2018, and forwarded it to LDPSC on December 15, 2018; however, LDPSC

claims it did not receive the ARP until February 7, 2019. LDPSC did not respond

to Mr. Taylor' s ARP until April 30, 2019, 141 days after Mr. Taylor' s grievance

was accepted by Winn.

In Reed, a total of 147 days had elapsed from the time Winn accepted the

plaintiff' s grievance until LDPSC issued a response. While we acknowledge that

Winn is not a party to the instant action, and neither the trial court nor this court

have the authority to cast Winn for costs, we also acknowledge that the trial court

has great discretion in assessing costs to whichever party in a way that is equitable.

In viewing the ongoing inequities of inordinately slow responses to ARPs going
between Winn and LDPSC, we can certainly find no abuse of discretion in the trial

court' s casting of costs entirely to LDPSC, when no fault at all can be imputed on

the plaintiff for the prolonged delay in LDPSC' s addressing of grievances.

All costs of this appeal are assessed to the Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections.

AFFIRMED.

2

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2020 CA 0095

7AMAL TAYLOR

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS

McClendon, 7., dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the majority for the reasons set forth in my dissent in

Reed v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 20- 0091

La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 2/ 20), So. 3d