Troy D. Grimes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2020 CA 0817

TROY D. GRIMES # 308854

J VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered APR 2 6 2021

APPEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

STATE OF LOUISIANA

DOCKET NUMBER 678064, SECTION 24

HONORABLE DONALD R. JOHNSON, JUDGE

Troy D. Grimes Plaintiff/Appellant
Cottonport, Louisiana Pro Se

Jonathan R. Vining Attorney for Defendant/ Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: WDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, and PENZATO, JJ.

McDonald, J.

In this case an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections ( DPSC), Troy D. Grimes, appeals a judgment of the trial

court dismissing his petition for judicial review with prejudice. After review, we

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 13, 2018, Mr. Grimes was put into investigative segregation,

pending an investigation into accusations of a disciplinary infraction. During the

investigation, two confidential informants stated that Mr. Grimes had possession of

a cell phone that he used to arrange for drugs to be brought into the Raymond

Laborde Correctional Center ( RLCC) through various offenders during visitation.

After the investigation was completed, the matter proceeded to a disciplinary

hearing. Mr. Grimes was found guilty of general prohibited behavior, a violation of

Rule 30C. Rule 30C prohibits " threatening, planning, conspiring or attempting to

commit a violation of the rules of behavior for adult offenders or state and federal

laws, aiding or abetting another offender involved in committing a violation of the

rules or state and federal lawsJJ" LAC Title 22, Part 1, § 341. For this violation,

Mr. Grimes was sanctioned to 30 days of forfeiture of good time and loss of four

weeks of yard privileges.

Mr. Grimes filed an appeal ( number RLCC- 2018- 165) of the disciplinary

board' s decision with the Warden. The Warden denied the appeal. The Warden

found that an investigation verified the accusation, and that Mr. Grimes presented

no evidence other than denying the report as written. The Warden further found that

the sanctions imposed were allowed and were warranted for the rule violation.

Thereafter, Mr. Grimes filed an appeal with the Secretary of the DPSC. The appeal

was denied.

9

Mr. Grimes then filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial

District Court. The Commissioner reviewed the case, determined that the penalty

was authorized by the DPSC' s promulgated rules for a Schedule B violation, and

determined that Mr. Grimes failed to allege specific facts to show that his discipline

was arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of a constitutional right! The

Commissioner recommended that the trial court affirm the decision and dismiss Mr.

Grimes' s appeal with prejudice. After a de novo review, the trial court adopted the

reasons of the Commissioner as its own, affirmed the DPSC' s decision, and

dismissed the petition for judicial review with prejudice. Mr. Grimes has appealed

that judgment.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Grimes maintains that prison officials prejudiced his

substantial rights in forfeiting 30 days of his good time credit by not following

procedural guidelines and not rendering adequate due process. Specifically, he

maintains that the original disciplinary report did not contain information to satisfy

the notice requirement; that he was entitled to present witness testimony; that he was

entitled to copies of investigative and confidential informant reports; that

disciplinary and investigative reports should have included the date, time, and place

of the alleged offense; that the statements of two confidential informants did not

provide sufficient evidence for the finding of guilt; that there was not sufficient

evidence to find him guilty; and that he did not receive adequate due process.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 1177( A)(9) sets forth the appropriate standard

of review by the district court, which functions as an appellate court when reviewing

the Department' s administrative decisions. Specifically, the court may reverse or

l The office of Commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court was created by La. R.S. 13: 711 to
hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state
prisoners. La. R.S. 13: 713( A). The Commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted

to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. See La. R.S. 13: 713( C)( 5).

3

modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have

been prejudiced because the administrative findings are: ( 1) in violation of

constitutional or statutory law; ( 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

3) made upon unlawful procedure; ( 4) affected by other error of law; ( 5) arbitrary,

capricious, or characterized by an abuse 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); Lightfoot v. Stalder, 2000- 1120 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 22/ 01), 808

So. 2d 710, 715- 716, writ denied, 2001- 2295 ( La. 8/ 30/ 02), 823 So. 2d 957; Grayer

v. Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections, 2017- 0497 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

1/ 30/ 18), 242 So. 3d 592, 594.

On review of the district court' s judgment in a suit for judicial review under

La. R.S. 15: 1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings

or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the

Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court

of appeal.
New v. Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections, 2015- 1160

La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 24/ 16), 190 So.3d 345, 349.

The record shows that Mr. Grimes' s signature is found on the original

disciplinary report, confirming that he was advised ofthe charges against him at least

24 hours prior to the hearing. Mr. Grimes was given a hearing where he was advised

of his rights, was represented by substitute counsel, was read the charges against

him, was allowed to face and question his accuser, Lt. Col. Craig Laborde ( who

conducted the investigation into the charges), and was allowed to raise motions. His

motion to present witnesses was denied, as it was determined the anticipated

testimony would be repetitive.

Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 22, Part 1, § 34 1 ( G)( 4)( n), provides that:

In situations where the disciplinary report is based on a single
confidential informant, there must be other evidence to corroborate the
violation.
That evidence may include, but is not limited to, testimony

4

from another confidential informant, the record ( investigative report)
or other evidence.
Whenever information is provided by confidential
informants, the informant must be certified as having provided reliable
information in the past ( and have legitimate knowledge of the present
incident( s)). If requested, the accusing employee must be summoned
to testify about the reliability and credibility of the confidential
informant(s) when the disciplinary report is based solely on information
provided by confidential informants.
i. All confidential information used in the disciplinary
process shall be documented on the confidential
informant testimony and certification form.
Lt. Col. Laborde was questioned about the veracity of the confidential

informants, and he testified regarding the reliability and credibility of the

confidential informants, in accordance with LAC Title 22, Part 1, § 341. The record

contains the required CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT TESTIMONY AND

CERTIFICATION sheets signed by Lt. Col. Laborde. The record shows that a

confidential informant notified Lt. Col. Laborde on September 24, 2018, that Mr.

Grimes had a cellphone, stored it in his locker, and used it to arrange for drugs to be

brought into RLCC. The second confidential informant notified Lt. Col. Laborde on

September 25, 2018, that Mr. Grimes had a cellphone and allowed certain offenders

to use it to get suboxone strips into RLCC. The informant stated that he asked to

use Mr. Grimes' s cellphone, and that he observed Mr. Grimes using the cellphone.

While the record does not contain the exact date and time of the offenses charged,

we note that to provide the exact date, time, and place of the offenses could give

away the identity of the confidential informants.

CONCLUSION

After thorough review, we find no error of law, and we cannot say that the

administrative findings were arbitrary, capricious, characterized by an abuse of

discretion, or manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial

evidence on the record. See La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9).

5

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court judgment, dismissing the petition for

judicial review with prejudice, is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are assessed against

the appellant, Troy D. Grimes.

AFFIRMED.

11