Larry D. Jefferson, Chief Judge Court of Fourth Judicial District Court of State of Louisiana and Fourth Judicial District Court of State of Louisiana v. Ouachita Parish Police Jury and Parish of Ouachita

Judgment rendered December 18, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 56,096-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

LARRY D. JEFFERSON, CHIEF Plaintiffs-Appellants
JUDGE COURT OF FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF STATE OF LOUISIANA and
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF STATE OF
LOUISIANA

versus

OUACHITA PARISH POLICE Defendants-Appellees
JURY and PARISH OF
OUACHITA

*****

Appealed from the
Fourth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2024-00120

Honorable Jimmy C. Teat, Ad Hoc, Judge

*****

THE DAVENPORT FIRM, APLC Counsel for Appellants
By: Thomas D. Davenport, Jr.

JAY BARDY MITCHELL Counsel for Appellees
Assistant District Attorney

*****

Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

PITMAN, C. J.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Larry D. Jefferson, Chief Judge of the Fourth

Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, and the Fourth Judicial

District Court of the State of Louisiana (collectively, “the Fourth JDC”)

appeal the district court’s sustaining of an exception of no cause of action

filed by Defendants-Appellees Ouachita Parish Police Jury and Parish of

Ouachita (collectively, “the Police Jury”). For the following reasons, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

On January 10, 2024, the Fourth JDC filed a petition for writ of

mandamus and injunctive relief against the Police Jury. The Fourth JDC

developed a budget for the 2024 year and determined that $662,994 was

necessary and reasonable for the operations and maintenance of the court. It

submitted this budget to the Police Jury; and on December 4, 2024, the

Police Jury approved a budget of $133,122. The Fourth JDC contended that

in taking this official action, the Policy Jury declined to fund the court,

which is a mandatory function of the Police Jury. It requested that a writ of

mandamus be issued to compel the Police Jury to properly fund, pay and

provide for the necessary and reasonable expenses of the Fourth JDC, to pay

all outstanding unpaid expenses and to reform its budget to include and pay

sums not less than the monthly expenses for the judicial expense fund, in

addition to furnishing the necessary quarters for the court and its employees

and personnel.

On February 16, 2024, the Police Jury filed a peremptory exception of

no cause of action. It argued that a petition for mandamus is not an

appropriate vehicle for the relief sought by the Fourth JDC and, therefore,

that it fails to state a cause of action and should be dismissed. It stated that

in Pineville City Ct. v. City of Pineville, 22-00336 (La. 1/27/23), 355 So. 3d

600, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that a court seeking to impose

liability on a governing jurisdiction for payment of expenses claimed by the

court as reasonable and necessary does not state a cause of action for

mandamus and must be dismissed. It explained that consideration of

whether claimed expenses are reasonable and necessary involves the

exercise of discretion on its part and that the Fourth JDC has not alleged that

it failed to provide any specific funding mandated by a specific statute.

On March 8, 2024, the Fourth JDC filed an opposition. It argued that

Pineville City Ct. v. City of Pineville, supra, is not controlling but, rather,

that McCain v. Grant Par. Police Jury, 440 So. 2d 1369 (La. App. 3 Cir.

1983), applies. It stated that the third circuit determined that a writ of

mandamus was the proper procedural device to compel a police jury to pay

past-due bills and reform the budget to provide for expected future bills. It

also argued that the Police Jury has not met its burden of proof to support its

exception because it had not shown that its acts were discretionary, that the

expenses included in the budget are not reasonable or necessary and that it

does not have a mandatory duty to fund the Fourth JDC.

On March 15, 2024, the Police Jury filed a reply. It emphasized that

the issue presented in its exception is whether mandamus is the proper

procedural vehicle for the Fourth JDC to assert its claim for additional

funding. It contended that mandamus is not the proper vehicle. It explained

that budgetary decisions involve an exercise of discretion and that this

discretionary element prevents the use of a writ of mandamus.

2

A hearing was held on March 19, 2024. Counsel for both parties

discussed and distinguished the Pineville City Ct. v. City of Pineville, supra,

and McCain v. Grant Par. Police Jury, supra, cases. The district court took

the matter under advisement.

On May 1, 2024, the district court filed its reasons for judgment. It

agreed with the Police Jury that Pineville City Ct. v. City of Pineville, supra,

applies to this case and explained that where no specific statutory directive

applies to making budgetary decisions, the local governing authority

exercises its discretion. It stated that the discretionary element prevents the

use of the writ of mandamus to mandate that the Police Jury provide the

exact level of funding that the Fourth JDC requested. Accordingly, the

district court sustained the exception of no cause of action filed by the Police

Jury and dismissed the Fourth JDC’s case.

On May 22, 2024, the district court filed a judgment sustaining the

exception of no cause of action and dismissing the suit.

The Fourth JDC appeals.

DISCUSSION

In its sole assignment of error, the Fourth JDC argues that the district

court erred by applying Pineville City Ct. v. City of Pineville, supra, to this

case and concluding that it could not utilize a writ of mandamus. It argues

that the Police Jury has a legal responsibility and obligation to fund the

Fourth JDC, that its failure to do so gives rise to a cause of action and that a

writ of mandamus is the proper procedure to use to compel the Police Jury to

fund the Fourth JDC.

The Police Jury argues that the district court did not err in determining

that the Fourth JDC’s demand that it fund all reasonable and necessary
3

expenses failed to state a cause of action for mandamus. It emphasizes that a

writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel an act that involves the exercise

of discretion. It states that the Fourth JDC’s suit is not based on any specific

statutory directive but on the general proposition that the Police Jury has an

obligation to fund all reasonable and necessary expenses of the court.

The function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal

sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy

on the facts alleged in the pleading. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v.

Subaru S., Inc., 616 So. 2d 1234 (La. 1993). It should be granted only when

it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

of any claim which would entitle him to relief. Badeaux v. Sw. Computer

Bureau, Inc., 05-0612 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So. 2d 1211. If the petition states a

cause of action on any ground or portion of the demand, the exception

should generally be overruled. Id. In reviewing a district court’s ruling

sustaining an exception of no cause of action, the appellate court should

conduct a de novo review because the exception raises a question of law, and

the district court’s decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition.

Indus. Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So. 2d 1207.

A writ of mandamus may be issued in all cases where the law

provides no relief by ordinary means or where the delay involved in

obtaining ordinary relief may cause injustice. La C.C.P. art. 3862. A writ of

mandamus may be directed to a public officer to compel the performance of

a ministerial duty required by law. La. C.C.P. art. 3863.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has routinely held that the only

circumstance under which courts may cause a writ of mandamus to issue is

where the actions sought to be performed by the legislature are purely
4

ministerial in nature. Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La. 12/1/04), 889 So. 2d

1019. See also Pineville City Ct. v. City of Pineville, supra. Ministerial

duties are duties in which no element of discretion is left to the public

officer. Hoag v. State, supra. A ministerial duty is a simple, definite duty,

arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law.

Id. If a public officer is vested with any element of discretion, mandamus

will not lie. Id.

As argued by the Police Jury, Pineville City Ct. v. City of Pineville,

supra, is applicable to the case sub judice. In Pineville City Ct. v. City of

Pineville, supra, the Louisiana Supreme Court considered La. R.S. 13:1888,

which provides for salaries of clerks and deputy clerks. It noted the

discretionary nature of that statute and stated:

The statute does not expressly provide any compulsory
language for payments exceeding the statutory minimums, nor
does it clearly define any amounts exceeding the minimums for
which the governing authorities are mandated responsibility.
We agree with Pineville that the minimum salaries for the clerk
and deputy clerks are clearly mandated; any amounts above the
minimums are not statutorily specified. Since a critical element
necessary for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the
public official to whom the writ is directed may exercise no
element of discretion when complying with a statute, City
Court cannot state a cause of action for the issuance of a writ of
mandamus.
***
Ultimately, we find City Court has failed to show that its
petition for mandamus was an appropriate vehicle for its action.
The statutory language at issue, and the nature of the demand
by City Court, clearly have discretional elements left to the
governing authorities.

It also distinguished McCain v. Grant Par. Police Jury, supra, and noted

that in McCain, the requested funding was clearly required as statutorily

mandated operational expenses.

5

In the case before this court, the Fourth JDC contends in its writ of

mandamus that statutes including La. R.S. 13:961, La. R.S. 15:571.11(B),

La. R.S. 33:1654, La. R.S. 33:4713 and “other legal authority” obligate and

require the Police Jury “to provide for the necessary and reasonable

expenses for the effective and efficient operation” of the court. Although

some statutes mandate that the Police Jury fund portions of the Fourth JDC’s

budget, the Fourth JDC’s argument that the Police Jury provide for all

necessary and reasonable expenses of the court does not provide the basis

for a writ of mandamus. This demand necessitates the Police Jury to

determine amounts owed to the Fourth JDC, which involves the application

of discretion. As a writ of mandamus may only be used to compel the

performance of ministerial duties and may not be used when any element of

discretion is present, the writ of mandamus is not the proper vehicle for the

Fourth JDC’s demand. We agree with the district court that the Fourth JDC

failed to state a cause of action in its petition for writ of mandamus.

Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 934, which provides for the removal of the

impediment by amendment of the petition, we remand this case to the

district court to allow the Fourth JDC the opportunity to amend its petition

to state a cause of action.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s sustaining of

an exception of no cause of action filed by Defendants-Appellees Ouachita

Parish Police Jury and Parish of Ouachita. We remand for further

proceedings and grant Plaintiffs-Appellants Larry D. Jefferson, Chief Judge

of the Fourth Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, and the Fourth

Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana the opportunity to amend
6

their petition to state a cause of action. Costs are assessed to Plaintiffs-

Appellants Larry D. Jefferson, Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District

Court of the State of Louisiana, and the Fourth Judicial District Court of the

State of Louisiana in the amount of $130.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED.

7