Derrick Jerome Allen v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

Not Designated for Publication

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NUMBER 2020 CA 1300

DERRICK JEROME ALLEN

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered:
JUN 0 4 2021

Appealed from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Suit Number C690534

Honorable Trudy M. White, Presiding

Derrick Jerome Allen Plaintiff/Appellant
Angola, LA In Proper Person

Heather C. Hood Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

GUIDRY, J.

Petitioner, Derrick Jerome Allen, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana

Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( DPSC) at Angola State Penitentiary,

appeals from a trial court judgment affirming the decision of DPSC in ARP No.

LSP -2019- 1577 and dismissing his petition for judicial review with prejudice. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On July 22, 2019, petitioner filed ARP No. LSP -2019- 1577, asserting that on

April 21, 2019, Lieutenant Freda Gee hit him in the head with iron keys after he

refused to kiss her. Petitioner requested that certain officers be charged with

malfeasance in office and that he not be harassed or retaliated against. Following an

investigation, DPSC issued a first step response, noting that Lt. Gee stated that she

had no knowledge of any of the mentioned events ever happening. Additionally,

other officers questioned likewise had no knowledge of the incident. DPSC noted

that petitioner failed to bring his complaint to the attention of any supervisors who

were making rounds in the unit that day and waited until July 19, 2019, to file a

complaint. Finding no evidence to support his allegations, DPSC denied his request

for administrative remedy.

Thereafter, in a second step response, DPSC noted that it had considered

petitioner' s medical records dated April 23, 2019, where he made a self -declared

emergency sick call request, complaining that an officer had hit him in the head with

her keys. The results of his examination revealed no marks to his forehead or face

and no bruising or swelling. Finding that medical opinion is controlling, DPSC

determined that petitioner failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his

allegations.' As such, DPSC denied his request for relief.

DPSC also noted that any claims that Lt. Gee had taken advantage of him would not be addressed
in this grievance as that claim was addressed in ARP No. LSP -2019- 0827.

2

Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review of DPSC' s decision on November

13, 2019, seeking reversal of DPSC' s decision, another investigation of his

allegations, that certain prison officers be charged with malfeasance in office, and

that he not be subjected to harassment, discrimination, or retaliation for filing these

proceedings. A Commissioner with the Nineteenth Judicial District court thereafter

reviewed the matter and issued a report recommending dismissal of the petition for

judicial review. Specifically, the Commissioner noted the administrative record

demonstrated that DPSC conducted a thorough investigation into all of petitioner' s

allegations against Lt. Gee, interviewing multiple witnesses and conducting a PREA

investigation, which investigation determined that petitioner' s allegations were

unsubstantiated. Additionally, the Commissioner noted that petitioner had not

provided any evidence that he had experienced any harassment, discrimination, or

retaliation as a result of filing this proceeding. As such, the Commissioner found:

The burden of proof in any civil administrative appeal is with the
Petitioner, and medical opinion is controlling. If the facility
investigated Petitioner' s grievance and made a determination that relief
was not warranted based on Petitioner' s failure to provide any evidence
to substantiate his allegations, then this Court has no authority to
reverse such decision absent evidence or arbitrary, capricious or
manifestly erroneous reasoning on behalf of the Department.

Therefore, based on the limited scope of this Court' s review and
confining my review to the appellate administrative record alone as
required by law, I find that the record does not support a finding that
the Department was arbitrary, capricious, manifestly erroneous or in
violation of Petitioner' s rights when it found the evidence in the record
insufficient to warrant relief to Petitioner.

Petitioner filed a traversal to the Commissioner' s recommendation on April

24, 2020. Thereafter, on May 4, 2020, after a de novo consideration of the pleadings,

together with petitioner' s traversal, the trial court signed a judgment adopting the

Commissioner' s recommendation, affirming DPSC' s decision in ARP No. LSP -

2019 -1577, and dismissing the petition for judicial review with prejudice.

Ki

From our de novo review of the entire record, we find the Commissioner was

correct in her findings and determinations. Accordingly, we find no error in the

district court' s judgment adopting the Commissioner' s recommendation and

dismissing the petition for judicial review filed by petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. No

costs are assessed in this pauper suit.

AFFIRMED.

El