Glen Seals v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
Lf/ V

tiff . 44 47C4/
COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2020 CA 0822

GLEN SEALS

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONS

JUDGMENT RENDERED: FEB 2 5 MT

EWWWWWW3

Appealed from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge • State of Louisiana
Docket Number C696803 • Section 27

The Honorable Trudy M. White, Judge Presiding

Glen Seals, D. O. C. # 263204 APPELLANT

Louisiana State Penitentiary PLAINTIFFPro Se
Angola, Louisiana

Jonathan Vining ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Baton Rouge, Louisiana DEFENDANT— Louisiana
Department of Public
Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., WELCH, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WELCH, J.

Glen Seals, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections (" the Department") and confined to the Louisiana State

Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, appeals a judgment of the district court

dismissing his Petition for Judicial Review of Disciplinary Board Appeal No. LSP -

2020 -0144.

Seals was issued a disciplinary rule violation report, and following a hearing

before the prison disciplinary board, he was found guilty of violating Rule # 6

Disorderly conduct) and Rule # 29 ( Disturbance). The combined penalties

imposed were twenty days of disciplinary segregation, with six days credit for time

served, and four weeks loss of canteen privileges. He appealed that decision first

to the Warden and the appeal was denied.

Seals then filed a petition for judicial review in the district court seeking the

reversal and expungement of the disciplinary report from his record, compensation

for any and all court costs and attorney fees, and his return to his previously

assigned housing unit and job. The commissioner assigned to the matter issued a

screening report recommending that Seals' petition be dismissed for its failure to

state a cause of action for which relief could be granted. In the commissioner' s

report, the commissioner noted that the only penalties imposed were twenty days

disciplinary segregation, with six days credit for time served, and four weeks loss

of canteen privileges, that Seals was afforded a hearing before the disciplinary

board, and an appeal of that ruling to the Warden.' The commissioner further

noted that Seals did not lose good time nor did he suffer any other atypical

punishment for the disciplinary violations, and therefore, no substantial rights were

involved. Therefore, the commissioner found that absent evidence supporting a

The commissioner noted that the nature of Seals' punishment did not allow for an appeal to the Secretary of the
Department.

2

substantial right violation, Seals' petition failed to state a cause of action because it

did not meet the threshold requirement that would permit the district court to

intervene in the authority of the prison administration to enforce discipline and

security in the prison. Based on this finding, the commissioner recommended that

the district court dismiss Seals' suit without prejudice, at his cost, pursuant to La.

R.S. 15: 1177( A) ( 9), for failing to raise a substantial rights violation and, thus,

failing to state a cause of action or raise a cognizable claim. Thereafter, on July 7,

2020, the district court issued and signed a judgment in conformity with the

recommendation of the commissioner, dismissing Seals' suit with prejudice.

After a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the judgment of

the district court or in the analysis and conclusions of the commissioner, which the

district court adopted. As recognized by the commissioner' s screening report, in

order for the district court to reverse or modify the decision of the Department,

Seals had to first show how his substantial rights were prejudiced by the decision.

See La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9). 2 The disciplinary sentence of twenty days of

disciplinary segregation with six days credit for time served and four weeks of loss

of canteen privileges is not unusual or a significant hardship in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life and did not prejudice Seals' substantial rights. In

the absence of prejudice to Seals' substantial rights, modification or reversal of the

disciplinary action by the district court ( or this Court) is not warranted under the

2 Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 1177( A)(9) provides, in pertinent part:

The court may reverse or modify the decision [ of the Department] only if
substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency.
c) Made upon unlawful procedure.
d) Affected by other error of law.
e) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion.
f) Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial

evidence on the whole record.
Emphasis added).

N

law. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court, dismissing Seals'

Petition for Judicial Review of Disciplinary Board Appeal No. LSP -2020- 0144 and

issue this opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules— Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-

16. 2( A)(2),( 5), and ( 6). All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, Glen

Seals.

AFFIRMED.

rd