Wilbert Bradley v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2023 CA 0306

WILBERT BRADLEY # 118934

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered. SEP 212023

Appealed from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Case No. C709703, Sec. 25

The Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding

Wilbert Bradley Plaintiff/Appellant
Angola, Louisiana Pro Se

Jonathan Vining Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ.

THERIOT, J.

Wilbert Bradley appeals the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s (" 1911

JDC") judgment rendered on December 28, 2022.
For the following reasons, we
affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wilbert Bradley is an inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola,
Louisiana.
Previously, on January 3, 2018, Bradley filed an administrative remedy
procedure (" ARP") ( LSP -2018- 0004) wherein he sought the restoration of good

time'
in part pursuant to Rivera v. State, 727 So.2d 609 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1998). 2
The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" the Department")

denied Bradley' s request on April 20, 2018, stating in pertinent part:
After careful review of your offender record[,] it is noted that your
record was reviewed on 08/ 09/ 1999 and your good time was restored
in compliance with the Rivera Decision. Again on 12/ 02/ 2000 your
record was reviewed and your good time was restored in compliance
with the Cain Decision. At this time your Master Record is in
compliance with all decisions regarding restoration of good time.

Therefore, your request for Administrative Remedy is denied.
Bradley proceeded to the second step of the ARP process. In June 2018, the

Department responded as follows:

The first step response is determined to be clear and concise and has
adequately addressed your issues. The section on the master prison
record marked " RESTORATION"
is only good time restored per the
Restoration Panel for being two years report free. The good time
restored per the Rivera and Cain decisions was removed directly off
your MS ON TOTAL FTE TO DATE: section. Your good time was
restored during the appropriate time that these cases were relevant.
Your time computation is considered correct and will not be amended
in this instance.

The record contains no evidence of Bradley appealing the Department' s June 2018
second step response.

Diminution of sentence for good behavior, as provided for in LSA-R.S. 15: 571. 3, is commonly referred to as
good time."
Englade v. Louisiana Dep' t ofCorr., 2021- 0132 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 30/21), 340 So.3d 952, 957, writ
denied, 2022- 00209 (La. 4/ 12/ 22), 336 So. 3d 82.

Bradley references a second case, which he simply refers to as Cain. Bradley is presumably referring to Hills v.
Cain, 1999-2324 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 31/ 00), 764 So.2d 1048.

2

Subsequently, on March 23, 2021, Bradley filed another ARP ( LSP -2021-

0792) wherein he asserted the same claims that he asserted in his 2018 ARP. On

May 13, 2021, the Department responded, again stating that good time had already
been restored to Bradley pursuant to the Rivera and Cain decisions. The

Department then referred Bradley to his 2018 ARP. Bradley proceeded to the

second step of the ARP. In June 2021, the Department responded in pertinent part

as follows:

You have submitted a grievance requesting restoration of good time
based on the Cain and Rivera decisions. This grievance is a copy of
the grievance you filed in 2018 under LSP -2018- 0004. Your issues
were addressed at that time and will not be addressed again. Your
request is denied.

On July 16, 2021, Bradley filed a Petition for .Judicial Review with the 19th

JDC, seeking judicial review of the Department' s denial of his 2021 ARP. In the

statement of his claim, Bradley wrote that "[ t]he good time taken by the

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTION was unlawfully
done, [ and] should be restored to the Plaintiff."

On December 12, 2022, the Commissioner of the 19" JDC (" the

Commissioner") recommended that Bradley' s 2021 ARP be dismissed with

prejudice at Bradley' s cost due to his failure to state a cause of action for which
relief could be granted.'
The Commissioner pointed out that Bradley' s 2021 ARP
addressed the exact same grievance as his 2018 ARP. The Commissioner further

noted that Bradley' s 2018 ARP had been denied on the basis that Bradley' s good
time had already been corrected in accordance with the Rivera and Cain decisions.
Subsequently, on December 28, 2022, the 19" JDC adopted the

Commissioner' s written recommendations and dismissed Bradley' s 2021 ARP

The office of the Commissioner of the 19th JDC 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. The Commissioner' s
written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them.
Hakim- El-Mumit v. Stalder, 2003- 2549 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10129104), 897 So.2d 112, 113 n. 1.

with prejudice for Petitioner' s failure to state a cause of action for which relief

could be granted." This appeal followed.

The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, set forth in La. R.S.
15: 1171- 1179,
provides that the Department may adopt an ARP for receiving,
hearing, and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by offenders

against the state, the governor, the Department or its employees. The adopted

procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling the complaints and grievances to

which they apply. La. R.S. 15: 1171; see also Spikes v. Louisiana Dep' t of P. ub.
Safety & Corr., 2022- 0504 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 4/ 22), 354 So. 3d 84, 86- 87. The

rules and procedures promulgated by the Department are set forth in LAC

22: I.325.
Pursuant to these rules, offenders must exhaust a two-step ARP before
they can proceed with a suit in federal or state court. La. R.S. 15: 1176; LAC

22: I.325( F)( 3)( a)( viii); see also Spikes, 354 So.3d at 86- 87.

An offender aggrieved by an adverse decision rendered pursuant to any ARP
can institute proceedings for judicial review by filing a petition for judicial review
in the 19th JDC. See La. R.S. 15: 1177( A).
On review of the agency decision, the
district court functions as an appellate court. Brawn v. Louisiana Dep' t of Tub.

Safety & Corr., 2015- 1958 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 19/ 16), 277 So. 3d 326, 329.
The

district court' s review shall be confined to the record and limited to the issues
presented in the petition for review and the ARP filed at the agency level. See La.

R. S. 15: 1177( A)(5).

On appellate review of a 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. As such, the de novo standard of review shall be applied.

GI

Greenhouse v. Louisiana Dep' t ofPub. Safety & Corr., 2017- 0316 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
11/ 1/ 17), 2017 WL 4946864, at * 2 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2017- 2122 ( La.

1/ 8/ 19); 259 So. 3d 1021.

DISCUSSION

Bradley' s sole assignment of error relates to his allegation that the

Department failed to restore forfeited good time in accordance with the Rivera
decision.
It is clear from the appellate record that Bradley' s 2021 ARP contains
the same allegations as his 2018 ARP. However, it is unclear whether Bradley
sought judicial review of his 2018 ARP. The Commissioner' s Report references

the Department' s claims that Bradley failed to appeal the denial of his 2018 ARP.

The report further states that the Department reiterated that claim during an
October 13, 2022 status conference and references a transcript from that status

conference in a footnote. That transcript is not contained within the record.

Based on our review of the appellate administrative record and pursuant to
LSA-R. S. 15: 1177( A)(9), we find no error in the district court' s judgment

dismissing the petition for judicial review. On review, we conclude that Bradley

has failed to prove that the Department' s decision was arbitrary, capricious,

manifestly erroneous, or in violation of Bradley' s constitutional or statutory rights,
and, thus, the district court was correct in dismissing Bradley' s suit. See Thomas
v. Hebert, 2010- 1317 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 11/ 11), 2011 WL 766665, at * 2. We

further note that, pursuant to the Department' s rules governing adult administrative
remedy procedures, the ARP screening officer is specifically authorized to reject a

request for administrative remedy where, as here, the complaint is a duplicate
request. See LAC 22: I.325( c)( i)( c). Considering the foregoing, the 19" JDC' s

December 28, 2022 judgment is affirmed.

5

For the above reasons, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s December 28,

2022 judgment is affirmed.
Costs of the appeal are assessed to Wilbert Bradley,
Appellant.

AFFIRMED.