Joshua Ray Hyatt v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2026 -CA -0092

JOSHUA RAY HYATT'

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered: momm

Appealed from the 19" Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Case No. C747086

Honorable Richard " Chip" Moore, Judge Presiding

Joshua Ray Hyatt In Proper Person
Franklin, GA

Jericha Remondet Counsel Defendant/Appellee
Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public

Safety & Corrections

MMMMMMM3

BEFORE: PENZATO, LANIER, AND FIELDS, JJ.

LANIER, J.

Plaintiff/appellant, Joshua Ray Hyatt (" Hyatt"), who was an inmate in the

custody of the defendant/appellee, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and

Corrections (" DPSC"), when this matter arose, appeals a district court judgment

dismissing his petition for judicial review with prejudice and at his cost. For the

following reasons, we affirm.

On September 18, 2023, Hyatt filed a request for administrative remedy,

alleging his rap sheet did not correctly calculate his, parole time for a charge he

pleaded guilty to in 2016 under docket no. 708039. He noted he pleaded guilty to

this charge on March 7, 2016, and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. Hyatt

further stated that he was released on parole in 2018, but it was later revoked in

2019. After this revocation, Hyatt alleged he was then incorrectly sentenced to

serve eight and one-half years. The record contains a letter from the Board of

Pardons and Parole indicating his parole was revoked on July 11, 2023, because he

pleaded guilty to parole violations.

In a separate request for administrative remedy also filed on September 18,

2023, Hyatt alleged his rap sheet contains an incorrect time calculation because he

did not receive jail credits on "[ d] ocket 1950 and 1951" as the judge who

sentenced him in Assumption Parish ordered. He claimed he is owed credit on

each since January 2019, which would result in his immediate release.

The minutes from the February 1, 2021 sentencing indicate that Hyatt

pleaded guilty to a charge of monetary instrument abuse ( docket no. 1950) and a

charge of a convicted felon possessing a firearm ( docket no. 1951). The 23rd

Judicial District Court, Div. D, for Assumption Parish. sentenced him as follows:

It is the sentence of this court that the Defendant be committed to
DPSC] for a term of three ( 3) years at hard labor with credit for time
served since January 29, 2019, and pay a fine in the amount of five
2

thousand dollars ($ 5, 000. 00) for the charge of monetary instrument
abuse under docket number 19- 50; and seven ( 7) years in [ DPSC] at

hard labor with credit for time served since January 10, 2019, for the
charge of convicted felon possessing a firearm or carrying a concealed
weapon under docket number 19- 51. Sentences are to run consecutive
with each other.

DPSC' s first -step response denied Hyatt' s requested relief. In its second -

step response on March 22, 2024, DPSC granted Hyatt' s relief in part and denied

in part, reasoning:

In your grievance you contend that your parole time on docket
number 70839 is incorrect and that you are not receiving the
appropriate amount of jail credit for Docket 1_',T- os. 1950 and 1951.
After a review of your record, it was found 1hat you are a parole
violator and you are receiving all of the jail credits that you are
entitled to. However, it was found that your parole eligibility date
PED) was incorrect. The correction to your PED has been
completed. Attached is a copy of your amended master prison record.
It is to be noted that the court' s order is being followed by allowing
credit in accordance with C. Cr.P. Art 880, which prohibits

overlapping credit on consecutive sentences. No further investigation
is warranted.

Your request is granted in part, where your PED was corrected and
denied in part as you are not entitled to overlapping jail credit.

Hyatt then filed a petition for judicial review with the 19th Judicial District

Court on April 23, 2024, alleging he did not receive all of his jail credits, and he

requested the following relief:

Order DPSC to calculate my time how Judge ordered and set a time
limit for them to do this considering correction would release me from
detention. Award me with monetary damages compensating for
injuries and imprisonment that would have been avoided if DPSC &
James LeBlanc would not have abused their discretion after they
reviewed sentencing order and refused compliance. I also request oral
argument.

As best we can determine, Hyatt requested that DPSC properly calculate his

incarceration time, immediately release him, and award him with monetary

damages for his injuries. DPSC answered the petition, arguing Hyatt' s sentences

are consecutive, and as such, he is not entitled to receive overlapping jail credit

91

under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 880; thus, his time

computation is correct.

The commissioner initially issued a stay and remand order, noting Hyatt was

sentenced in Assumption Parish on one charge with credit for time served since

January 29, 2019, and on another charge with credit for time served since January

M 2019, but the sentencing court was silent as to whether the sentences would run

concurrent or consecutive to the sentences imposed in " LFR 528070 and TER

708039." The commissioner reasoned the sentencing court' s silence and La. Code

Crim. P. art. 880 " would necessitate that the sentences imposed in Assumption

would run consecutively to those other sentences and that he would not be awarded

jail credits for time served[,]" but the sentencing court " clearly ' awarded' these

credits to the Petitioner, contrary to law, and therefore they should have been

credited accordingly." The commissioner found that the " administrative record is

clear that the Petitioner was not awarded these cred-its prior to his release onto

good time parole supervision nor was he awarded those credits after his

revocation." In a remand order, the commissioner gave DPSC sixty days to

address the issue of awarded credits.

DPSC filed a response to the commissioner' s remand order, asserting it

recalculated Hyatt' s time, and he was " released on good time supervised parole on

August 14, 2024, and is still under parole supervision living in Georgia." Further,

DPSC argued that because it granted Hyatt his " sole request," his petition was now

moot and should be dismissed with prejudice at his cost.

After DPSC' s recalculation, the commissioner found that Hyatt failed to

provide a copy of his sentencing transcript in support of his claim, and that

prevented this matter from being addressed properly. The commissioner

recommended that Hyatt' s suit be " dismissed as moot, with prejudice, and at the

Petitioner' s costs."
11

On September 25, 2025, Hyatt objected to DPSC' s response and motion to

dismiss his petition, arguing his requested relief was not limited to release from

custody or recalculation but also correction of his rasp sheet and compensation for

injuries sustained in DPSC custody; DPSC still failed to correctly calculate and

apply jail credits so that his remaining parole is properly reflected; and he paid the

Assumption Parish clerk to mail a copy of his transcripts to a specific person

calculating his time. Then on October 8, 2025, Hyatt. filed a motion to subpoena

medical records and administrative records and a motion for summary judgment.

Subsequently, on October 23, 2025, he filed a motion to object/traverse the

commissioner' s findings, asserting that he did provide sentencing transcripts that

were attached to his requests for administrative relief

The district court adopted the commissioner' s report and on November 19,

2025, rendered a judgment " dismissing this suit for judicial review of ARP No.

HDQ-2023- 2276 as moot, with prejudice, and at the Petitioner' s cost." On

December 9, 2025, Hyatt filed a motion for appeal that was granted.

DISCUSSION

Hyatt raises several assignments of error that can be summarized as follows:

1) the district court improperly dismissed his petition for judicial review that

alleged DPSC miscalculated his prison sentence and failed to order DPSC to pay

monetary compensation because of its failure; ( 2) the district court erred by not

ordering DPSC to provide a good explanation for failing to apply the sentencing

minutes; ( 3) the district court wrongly ordered him to pay costs and court fees; and

4) the district court erred by not providing him with legal assistance because he is

disabled.

The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (" CARP"), La. R.S.

15: 1171 et seq., provides that DPSC may adopt an administrative remedy

procedure for receiving, hearing, and disposing of complaints by offenders against
5

the state while in custody or under the supervision of DPSC. La. R.S. 15: 1171( B).

These procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling the complaints to which

they apply. Id. Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 1 l7l( B) pertinently provides that

such complaints:

I] nclude but are not limited to any and all claims seeking monetary,
injunctive, declaratory, or any other form of relief authorized by law
and by way of illustration includes actions pertaining to conditions of
confinement, personal injuries, medical malpractice, time

computations, even though urged as a writ of habeas corpus, or

challenges to rules, regulations, policies, or statutes.

The administrative remedies include a two-step procedure whereby the offender

requests relief from DPSC internally before filing suit, and "[ e] xhaustion can only

occur when a second step response on the merits has been issued." LAC

22: 1. 325( F)( 3)( a)( viii). Further, after exhausting : his administrative remedies,

a] ny offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision, excluding decisions

relative to delictual actions for injury or damages, by [ DPSC] . . . may, within

thirty days after receipt of the decision, seek judicial review of the decision only in

the Nineteenth Judicial District Court[.]" La. R.S. 15: 1177( A). However,

d] elictual actions for injury or damages shall be filed separately as original civil

actions." La. R.S. 15: 1177( C).

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

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

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

or modify the administrative decision only if the appellant' s substantial rights have

been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or

decisions are: ( 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; ( 2) in excess

made upon unlawful procedure; ( 4)
of the statutory authority of the agency; ( 3)

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

3

erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole

record. La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9).

The appellate court reviews the administrative record de novo and owes no

deference to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court.

Marchand v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2020- 0747

La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 24/ 21), 322 So. 3d 269, 273, writ denied, 2021- 00457 ( La.

9/ 27/ 21), 324 So. 3d 104.

Hyatt argues that DPSC miscalculated his " prison terms/ sentences both my

parole dockets and my Assumption Parish convictions from the time of my arrest

in January 2019" causing him to serve more time than. he should have resulting in

physical and mental injuries. Although Hyatt has been released, he contends the

miscalculation is still causing his parole time to be inaccurately calculated. He

alleges he is still being detained by a Louisiana parole hold and unable to bond out

on Georgia charges, and his parole incorrectly reflects a full-term date of 2032, but

his full term should be 2026.

Further, Hyatt maintains that because of the time miscalculation, he received

severe injuries that occurred while he was incarcerated past his release date. He

asserts he should have been given further opportunities to access records. Further,

he claims his Terrebonne Parish charges should be satisfied as well because he

pleaded to ten years in 2015.

Hyatt seeks a court order directing DPSC to correctly apply all of his time

served and provide comprehensive and up- to- date calculations explaining the

computation to the court so that his parole reflects a correct full term or

termination of parole if he is entitled to it. Moreover, he asks this court to hold

DPSC accountable for constitutional rights violations since January 2019, as he

thinks he served approximately two years more than needed. Hyatt also asks that

DPSC pay him monetary damages for each day he was erroneously held. Lastly,
7

he asks that DPSC be ordered to pay court costs, as this matter was caused by its

miscalculation.

In Billizone v. Department ofPublic Safety andCorrections, 2017- 0002 ( La.

App. 1st Cir. 6/ 14/ 17), 2017 WL 2603486, * 3 ( unpublished), this court held that

the right to judicial review of [a] CARP claim seeking credit for time served was

not rendered moot by [] release from physical custody."

First, we note that DPSC granted Hyatt relief in its second -step response in

the form of an amended parole eligibility date, but Hyatt contends this correction is

still wrong. Further, DPSC also admitted to miscalculating his credit for time

served and released him during the pendency of his administrative remedies. As in

Billizone, Hyatt' s release from physical custody did not automatically render his

claims moot. However, DPSC acknowledged its miscalculation of his credit for

time served, physically released him from custody, and corrected his parole

eligibility date.' We find that Hyatt has failed to show how DPSC erroneously

calculated its amended calculations or how his substantial rights have been

prejudiced; thus, his claim regarding credit for time served lacks merit.

Regarding Hyatt' s request for monetary damages based on alleged

constitutional violations, as well as physical and mental injuries, such tort claims

cannot be fully adjudicated under CARP. See Terrington v. Louisiana Board of

Parole, 2003- 2093 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6125104), 886 So. 2d 455, 458, writ denied,

2004- 2555 ( La. 6/ 24/ 05), 904 So. 2d 741 ( recognizing that a claim involving a

liberty interest or asserting deprivation of a constitutionally protected right is a

traditional civil matter over which the district court retains original jurisdiction).

After the administrative remedy process is complete., such "[ d] elictual actions for

1 As stated earlier in this opinion, DPSC' s initial calculation was based upon La. Code Crim. P.
art. 880 that prohibits overlapping jail credits. DPSC' s " miscalculation" resulted solely from the
trial court' s award of jail credits that was contrary to law.
N.

La. R.S.
injury or damages shall be filed separately as original civil actions."

15: 1177( C); Warren v. Louisiana Department off' Public Safety and Corrections,

2020- 0247 ( La. App. I st Cir. 2/ 19/ 21), 320 So. 3d 453, 456.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court' s judgment affirming the

decision of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections and dismissing the

suit with prejudice and at petitioner' s cost is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are

assessed against Joshua Ray Hyatt.

AFFIRMED.

I

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2026 -CA -0092

JOSHUA RAY HYATT

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Qr
FIELDS, J., dissents. Based on the record before this court, Hyatt' s claim

regarding the calculation of his parole time and whether it was correctly calculated

was never addressed by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the

commissioner, or the trial court that adopted the commissioner' s report. According

to Hyatt' s administrative appeal, he asserted he never wanted to correct the parole

eligibility date; instead he wanted his parole time properly calculated to reflect an

end date, which he believes to be in 2026, or if that date is not correct, then to explain

how the calculation was made. As this issue has not been addressed, I find that Hyatt

has an outstanding claim making the dismissal of his petition for judicial review by

the trial court error.