Kenan Allen v. State of Louisiana

KENAN ALLEN * NO. 2024-CA-0294

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA * FOURTH CIRCUIT

* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*******

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2021-05862, DIVISION “M”
Honorable Paulette R. Irons, Judge
******
JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins,
Judge Karen K. Herman)

Kenan Allen, #382599
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY
Spruce 2 - Main Prison
17544 Tunica Trace
Angola, LA 70712

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Liz Murrill
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Carey T. Jones
Amanda M. LaGroue
Assistant Attorneys General
Louisiana Department of Justice
P.O. Box 94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

AFFIRMED
NOVEMBER 14, 2024

SCJ
TFL
KKH

The plaintiff, Kenan Allen (“Mr. Allen”), an inmate of Louisiana State

Penitentiary (Angola), appeals the March 14, 2024 judgment of the Civil District

Court dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons

to follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Allen was convicted one count of second degree murder and three

counts of attempted second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 and La.

R.S. 14:27. On July 9, 2021, Mr. Allen filed a petition for declaratory judgment,

seeking a declaration that La. Const. art. I, §17 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 are

preempted by federal law based on racially discriminatory motivations of the

delegates of the 1898 Constitutional Convention of the State of Louisiana. Mr.

Allen filed the petition in Orleans Parish Civil District Court. Additionally, Mr.

Allen requested that the Civil District Court take judicial notice of all sworn and

expert generated evidence submitted in the record of State of Louisiana v. Melvin

1

Maxie, 11th Judicial District Court, 13-cr-72522 and requested the transcripts for

the Maxie proceeding.1

Thereafter, on July 6, 2023, Mr. Allen moved to amend his pleading and

filed an ex parte petition to make final judgment executory pursuant to La. C.C.P.

art. 27812 and petition for writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, Mr. Allen’s ex parte

petition sought to have the judgment rendered in Maxie made executory in this

matter. Mr. Allen also requested that once the judgment in Maxie is made

executory against the State, the Civil District Court issue a writ of habeas corpus.

Thereafter, Mr. Allen filed a writ of mandamus that sought from this Court

an order directing the Civil District Court to act on his two pleadings that were

filed on July 6, 2023. On November 22, 2023, this Court granted the writ, ordering

the Civil District Court to provide Mr. Allen and this Court notice of the status of

Mr. Allen’s case and any action upon these pleadings within sixty days of the

order. Allen v. Orleans Civil District Court, unpub., 2023-0687 (La. App. 4 Cir.

11/22/2023). Mr. Allen filed a second writ of mandamus seeking that the Civil

District Court be ordered to act on his ex parte petition to make final judgment

executory and petition for writ of habeas corpus. This Court granted the writ and

ordered the Civil District Court to provide Mr. Allen and this Court notice of the

status of Mr. Allen’s case and any action taken upon the pleadings. Allen v.

Orleans Civil District Court, unpub., 2024-0091 (La. App. 4 Cir. 03/15/2024). On

1 Maxie will be used to refer to State of Louisiana v. Melvin Maxie, 11th Judicial District Court,

13-cr-72522.
2 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2781 provides “[a] judgment rendered in a Louisiana

court may be made executory in any other Louisiana court of competent jurisdiction, if its
execution has not been and may not be suspended by appeal.”

2

January 12, 2024, the Civil District Court issued a status update, providing in

relevant part:

After a review of the record in this case, the Court has
discovered that both of these pleadings have been filed directly into
the Orleans Parish Clerk of Court’s physical record. . . . However,
because these pleadings did not contain orders of any kind requiring
the judge’s signature or any further action from the trial court, neither
of these pleadings were sent to the undersigned judge’s chambers, as
is the policy of the Civil District Court. In other words, if there is no
order requesting specific relief along with a signature line for the
district court judge, a pleading will not be sent to chambers for
review. The undersigned judge is aware that [Mr. Allen] sent letters to
the Clerk of Court inquiring about the status of these pleadings.
However, letters addressed to the Clerk of Court are not also given to
the district court judge and as such, the undersigned judge was not
aware of these letters until the physical record was later reviewed in
order to provide this status update. Furthermore, [Mr. Allen] has not
contacted the Court directly about these pleadings.

After reviewing the record, it does not appear to the trial court
that there is any further action it can take at this time since there are
no pending motions or unsigned orders in the record. In addition, it is
the understanding of the undersigned judge that neither she nor her
staff are allowed to give legal advice to the litigant; therefore, the
court is reluctant to provide any further information to Relator as to
how he should proceed going forward as undersigned believes it
would constitute legal advice.

Thereafter, on March 14, 2024, the Civil District Court issued an ex proprio

moto order, providing that the Civil District Court discovered that Mr. Allen is

requesting the court to take action regarding certain criminal proceedings. The

Civil District Court sua sponte granted a peremptory exception of lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and dismissed Mr. Allen’s claims.3 On April 3, 2024, Mr. Allen

filed a notice of intent to appeal the judgment. Mr. Allen’s appeal follows.

3 The judgment is silent on whether the petition is with or without prejudice. “Generally, a

judgment that is silent as to a dismissal with or without prejudice must be construed as a
dismissal “without prejudice” Doe v. Jesuit High Sch. of New Orleans, 2021-0284, p. 9 (La. App.
4 Cir. 11/10/21), 331 So.3d 426, 433.

3

DISCUSSION

The main issue Mr. Allen raises in this appeal is that the Civil District Court

erred in finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.4 Mr. Allen argues

that the Civil District Court erroneously applied La. R.S. 13:1137, as he did not

challenge his criminal conviction, but instead sought to make the judgment in

Maxie executory and petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Subject matter jurisdiction is “the legal power and authority of a court to

hear and determine a particular class of actions or proceedings, based upon the

object of the demand, the amount in dispute, or the value of the right asserted.” La.

C.C.P. art. 2. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the

parties or waived. See La. C.C.P. art. 3; Lassalle v. Napoleon, 2022-0460, p. 4 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 12/20/22), 356 So.3d 74, 77. “Whether a court has subject matter

jurisdiction is reviewed on appeal under the de novo standard of review.” Lassalle,

2022-0460, p. 4, 356 So.3d at 77 (citing Banerjee v. Banerjee, 2017-245, p. 3 (La.

App. 3 Cir. 12/13/17), 258 So.3d 699, 701).

This Court has continuously recognized the unique jurisdictional split of

Orleans Parish district courts, as follows:

Unlike every other parish in Louisiana, in Orleans Parish the
jurisdiction of the district courts is split between civil and criminal
matters. La. R.S. 13:1137 and 13:1336. The Orleans Parish civil
district courts have the “same civil jurisdiction as the district courts
throughout the state, except as otherwise provided by law.” La. R.S.
13:1137. The Orleans Parish criminal district courts have “exclusive
jurisdiction of the trial and punishment of all crimes, misdemeanors,

4 Mr. Allen presented two issues to the Court: 1) the Civil District Court erroneously applied

inapplicable law to the facts that were presented to the court, and 2) he filed an ex parte petition
to make final judgment in Maxie executory pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2781.

4

and offenses committed within the Parish of Orleans if the jurisdiction
is not vested by the law in some other court.” La. R.S. 13:1336. As
this Court has stated: “It is well settled that a judge of the Civil
District Court has no jurisdiction over a judge of the Criminal District
Court while he is acting in his official capacity.” Angelico v.
Cannizzaro, 543 So.2d 1064, 1067 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989).

Wells v. Criminal Dist. Court of Orleans Par., 2016-0181, p. 6 (La. App. 4

Cir. 8/24/16), 198 So.3d 283, 287 (quoting State ex rel. Pittman v. Conerly, 2012-

0468, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/12/12), 100 So.3d 339, 340).

Pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1137 and 13:1336, Orleans Parish Civil District

Courts lack jurisdiction over criminal proceedings. Wells, 2016-0181, p. 7, 198

So.3d at 287. Here, Mr. Allen initially filed a petition in the Civil District Court for

declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that La. Const. art. I, §17 and La.

C.Cr.P. art. 782 are preempted by federal law, and requested that the Civil District

Court make the judgment in State v. Maxie executory in relation to his criminal

proceeding. Mr. Allen also petitioned for writ of habeas corpus. While Mr. Allen

contends that he is not challenging his criminal conviction, our review of his

pleadings reveal that he is requesting the Civil District Court to grant him relief

relative to his criminal proceedings. In light of the aforementioned, we find that

the Civil District Court did not err in dismissing Mr. Allen’s action for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Civil District Court’s March 14,

2024 judgment dismissing Mr. Allen’s action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

5