Derrick Pierre v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

STATE OF LOUISIANA

FIRST CIRCUIT

2025 CA 0074
2024 CW 1311

DERRICK PIERRE

VERSUS

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered: SEP 19 2025

On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Trial Court Docket No. 741, 443, Sec. 22

The Honorable Beau Higginbotham, Judge Presiding

Derrick Pierre Plaintiff/Appellant
Rayburn Correctional Center In Proper Person
Angie, Louisiana

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

BEFORE: TIDE OT, PENZATO, AND BALFOUR, JJ.

PENZATO, J.

Derrick Pierre, an imnate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections ( DPSC), appeals a district court judgment dismissing his

petition for judicial review with prejudice and at his cost. A writ seeking the same

relief was referred to the appeal panel. We affirm the district court judgment and

deny the writ.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August of 2023, Mr. Pierre filed a grievance, Administrative Remedy

Procedure ( ARP) number RCC 2023- 672, asserting his incentive pay was incorrect

and seeking back pay. He also alleged that from November 13, 2022 through July

23, 2023, he received $ 177. 80 in incentive pay compensation, and Inmate Banking

arbitrarily seized $ 165. 80 from that amount to satisfy an outstanding debt for court

costs and Indigent Services and Supplies. He requested that 50% of the total amount

of incentive pay compensation seized be posted to his drawing or reserve account.

A First Step Response Form dated September 29, 2023 provided as follows:

Your complaint has been reviewed and investigated.

Upon investigation it was determined that your incentive pay was
incorrect. You should be receiving 25 cents per hour. You will receive
back [ pay] for 12 weeks. This was calculated at 40 hours per week
times 10 cents per hour for a total of $48. 00. These funds will be split
between your savings and drawing accounts in accordance with
Department Regulation # AM -C- 7, Section 6. A.(2), incentive pay to
offenders ... shall be distributed on the basis of 50% to the offender' s
drawing account and 50% to the offender' s savings account.

Your request for remedy is granted.

Mr. Pierre indicated he was not satisfied with the response and wished to

proceed to Step Two. According to Mr. Pierre, the First Step Response failed to

address his contention that his incentive pay was being seized to satisfy an
outstanding debt for court costs and Indigent Services and Supplies. He requested

that 50%
of the total amount seized be returned and, along with 50% of all future

amounts, be posted to his drawing or reserve account.
0

A Second Step Response Form dated October 17, 2023 denied Mr. Pierre' s

relief with the following explanation:

Your allegations have been considered. You are correct that

Department Regulation No. AM -C- 2 does state in part, " All
permissible sources of funds ( as described in Section 6. A.7) shall be
credited to the inmate' s drawing account in the Inmate Banking System.
When the inmate has an outstanding debt balance, and is currently in
an indigent status, 50% of the deposit received shall be posted to the
inmate' s drawing account and 50% shall be posted to the inmate' s
reserve account, up to a $ 250. 00 maximum limit." HOWEVER, it also
states in part, " incentive pay to inmates ... shall be distributed on the
basis of 50% to the inmate' s drawing account and 50% to the inmate' s
savings account ...Proceeds from incentive pay shall not be posted to
the inmate' s reserve account." There is nothing else that can be added
to make this issue any clearer. No further investigation is warranted.

Your request for relief is denied with explanation.

On December 6, 2023, Mr. Pierre filed a petition seeking judicial review of

ARP number RCC 2023- 672 in accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1171, et seq., and it was

assigned to a commissioner for evaluation.' In his petition, Mr. Pierre argued DPSC

seized 100% of his incentive pay for an outstanding debt for legal costs and Indigent

Services and Supplies when it is only allowed to seize 50% of his incentive pay and

must post the remaining 50% to his drawing or savings account. As relief, Mr. Pierre

requested an order that DPSC only seize 50% of his incentive pay and post the

remaining 50% to his drawing or savings account. He also requested reimbursement

for the amounts he contended were erroneously seized. DPSC answered the petition,

denying Mr. Pierre' s claims and specifically noting that he provided no legal support

that would allow him to avoid withholdings from back wages to satisfy outstanding

debt holds on his prisoner banking account.

1 The offices of commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court were 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
in whole or in part. La. R.S. 13: 713( C)( 5); Taylor v. Louisiana Department ofPublic Safety and
Corrections, 2022- 1129 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 2/ 23), 369 So. 3d 876, 878 n.2.
3

The commissioner reviewed the petition and the administrative record and

issued a report and recommendation. The commissioner noted that Mr. Pierre' s

initial grievance contained many attachments, which were included in the

administrative record. One of the attachments was a ledger showing Mr. Pierre' s

deposits and the accounts to which those deposits were distributed. The ledger

reflected that on September 7, 2023, $ 48. 00 in back pay was deposited to Mr.

Pierre' s savings account.2 The ledger further showed that on that same day, $ 24. 00

was withdrawn from his savings account and deposited to his drawing account. The

commissioner noted that despite Mr. Pierre' s allegations that 100% of his incentive

wages were withheld from him, " the record [ was] clear that 100% of his $ 48. 00

incentive back pay was deposited into his savings account and 50% was withdrawn

and deposited into his drawing account." The commissioner found that Mr. Pierre

failed to provide any evidence that DPSC' s decision in ARP number RCC 2023- 672

was arbitrary, capricious, manifestly erroneous, or in violation of his statutory or

constitutional rights, and the administrative record showed 50% of his incentive back

pay remained in his savings account and 50% was transferred to his drawing account

in accordance with DPSC policies and procedures. Accordingly, the commissioner

recommended that DPSC' s decision be affirmed and Mr. Pierre' s petition for judicial

review be dismissed with prejudice at his cost.

Mr. Pierre filed a traversal of the commissioner' s report and recommendation.

On October 1, 2024, after a de novo review of the record and Mr. Pierre' s traversal,

the district court signed a judgment affirming DPSC' s decision in ARP number RCC

2023- 672 and dismissing Mr. Pierre' s petition for judicial review with prejudice, at

his cost. From this judgment, Mr. Pierre appeals.'

2 The commissioner' s report incorrectly states that this deposit was received on July 7, 2023.
3 On October 22, 2024, Mr. Pierre filed a request for a devolutive appeal of the October 1, 2024
judgment in the district court. An order of appeal was signed by the district court on November
20, 2024. The record was lodged with this Court on January 17, 2025. In addition, on December
Cl

Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 1177 sets forth the appropriate standard of

review of a DPSC decision by the district court, which functions as an appellate

court when reviewing DPSC' s administrative decisions. The district court may

reverse or modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the

appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,

conclusions, or decisions are: ( 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory

provisions; ( 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; ( 3) made upon

unlawful procedure; (
4) affected by other error of law; (5) arbitrary or capricious or

characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion;

or ( 6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial

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

On review of the district court' s judgment, this Court reviews the

administrative record de novo, owing no deference 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.

Marchand v. Louisiana Department ofPublic Safety & Corrections, 2020- 0747 (La.

App. I Cir. 2/ 24/ 21), 322 So. 3d 269, 273, writ denied, 2021- 00457 ( La. 9/ 27/ 21),

324 So. 3d 104.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Pierre' s sole assignment of error is that DPSC arbitrarily
seized 96. 38% of his incentive pay wages beginning November 13, 2022 through

October 29, 2023. He contends the commissioner failed to thoroughly review the

statements for his savings, drawings, and reserve accounts for the periods beginning

20, 2024, Mr. Pierre filed an " Application for Devolutive Appeal" in this Court, seeking the same
relief requested in this appeal. The " Application for Devolutive Appeal" was treated as an

application for a supervisory writ, and by order dated May 9, 2025, the writ was referred to this
panel as the panel to which the appeal was assigned.

5

October 30, 2022 through November 29, 2023, which were attached to his initial

grievance. Mr. Pierre implies that because the ending balances in his savings and

drawing accounts were $ 0.00 for some of the months he earned incentive pay, DPSC

seized his earnings.

We have reviewed the statements contained in the administrative record. The

statement dated December 16, 2022 covers the period from October 30, 2022

through November 26, 2022, and shows that on November 13, 2022, $ 1. 60 in

incentive pay was deposited into both his savings and drawings accounts. The total

funds deposited into the accounts were withdrawn from the accounts for stamps and

legal supplies, resulting in a $ 0.00 balance on November 26, 2022. The statement

dated December 27, 2022 covers the period from November 27, 2022 through

December 24, 2022, and shows that on November 27, 2022 and December 11, 2022,

1. 60 in incentive pay was deposited into both his savings and drawings accounts.

The total funds deposited into the accounts were withdrawn from the accounts for

stamps, legal supplies, legal postage, and copies, resulting in a $ 0. 00 balance on

December 24, 2022. The statement dated February 15, 2023 covers the period from

December 25, 2022 through January 28, 2023, and shows that on December 25,

2022, $ 1. 60 in incentive pay was deposited into both his savings and drawings

accounts. The total funds deposited into the accounts were withdrawn from the

accounts for stamps and legal supplies, resulting in a $ 0.00 balance on January 28,
2023.
The statement dated March 24, 2023 covers the period from January 29, 2023

through February 25, 2023, and shows that on February 19, 2023, $ 6. 00 in incentive

pay was deposited into both his savings and drawings accounts. No withdrawals

were made, resulting in a $ 6.00 balance in each account on February 25, 2023. The

statement dated April 5, 2023 covers the period from February 26, 2023 through
March 25, 2023, and shows that on March 5 and 19, 2023, $ 6. 00 in incentive pay

was deposited into both his savings and drawings accounts. Withdrawals totaling

31

12. 00 were made from each account for stamps, legal supplies, legal postage,

copies, and medical co -pay, resulting in a $ 6.00 balance in each account on March

25, 2023. 4 The statement dated June 12, 2023 covers the period from April 30, 2023

through May 27, 2023, and shows a beginning balance of $0. 00 for each of his

savings and drawings accounts. On April 30 and May 14, 2023, $ 6. 00 in incentive

pay was deposited into both his savings and drawings accounts. A total of $12. 00

was withdrawn from each account for stamps, legal supplies, legal postage, copies,

and medical co -pay, resulting in a $ 0. 00 balance in each account on May 27, 2023.

The statement dated July 12, 2023 covers the period from May 28, 2023 through

June 24, 2023, and shows that on May 28, 2023 and June 11, 2023, $ 6. 00 in incentive

pay was deposited into both his savings and drawings accounts. Withdrawals

totaling $ 12. 00 were made from each account for stamps, legal supplies, legal

postage, ID duplicate, and medication, resulting in a $ 0. 00 balance in each account

on June 24, 2023. The statement dated August 17, 2023 covers the period from June

25, 2023 through July 29, 2023, and shows that on June 25, July 9, and July 23,
2023, $ 6.00 in incentive pay was deposited into both his savings and drawings

accounts. In addition, on July 11, 2023, a deposit of $18. 00 was made into his

savings account and two deposits of $9. 00 each were made into his drawings account

for backpay. During this period, withdrawals for stamps, legal supplies, legal

postage, copies, and medication were made from each account, as well as a $ 9. 00

withdrawal from his savings account for " court order," totaling $ 30.00, resulting in

a $
6.00 balance in each account on July 29, 2023. The statement dated September

135 2023 covers the period from July 30, 2023 through August 26, 2023, and shows

that on August 6 and 20, 2023, $ 6. 00 in incentive pay was deposited into both his

savings and drawings accounts. During this period, withdrawals totaling $ 12. 00

4 The administrative record did not contain a statement covering the period from late March
through April 2023.

7

were made from each account for stamps, legal supplies, legal postage, and copies,

resulting in a $ 6. 00 balance in each account on August 26, 2023. Finally, the

statement dated September 29, 2023 covers the period from August 27, 2023 through

September 23, 2023, and shows that on September 3, 2023, $ 6. 00 in incentive pay

was deposited into both his savings and drawings accounts, and on September 17,

2023, $ 10. 00 in incentive pay was deposited into both his savings and drawings

accounts. In addition, as noted by the commissioner, on September 7, 2023, $ 48. 00

in back pay was deposited into his savings account, and $ 24. 00 of that amount was

withdrawn from his savings and deposited into his drawing account. During this

period, withdrawals for stamps, legal supplies, legal postage, medical co -pay, and

general supplies were made from each account, as well as a $ 14. 40 withdrawal from

his savings account for " court order," totaling $ 36. 00, resulting in a $ 10. 00 balance

in each account on September 23, 2023.

This Court' s review is limited to the administrative record and the petition for

judicial review. The burden of proof in any civil administrative appeal is with the

petitioner. Barnes v. Louisiana Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections, 2024-

0042 ( La. App. I Cir. 9/ 20/24), 405 So. 3d 628, 631, writ denied, 2024- 01339 ( La.

1/ 28/ 25), 399 So. 3d 415.

Following our de novo review of the record, we conclude the documentary

evidence does not support Mr. Pierre' s claim that DPCS seized his incentive pay
earnings. The statements contained in the record show withdrawals from his account

for various items such as stamps, copies, and medication, as well as two withdrawals

for " court order,"
and there is no evidence that these withdrawals were unlawfully
made by DPSC. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court' s judgment

affirming DPSC' s decision denying Mr. Pierre' s claim and dismissing his petition
for judicial review with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court' s October 1, 2024 judgment is

affirmed, and the writ filed on December 20, 2024 is denied. Costs are assessed to

Derrick Pierre.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; WRIT DENIED.

X