Paris Madison v. Richard Stalder

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-389

PARIS MADISON

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS,
RICHARD STALDER, RONNIE FUTRELL,
T.W. THOMPSON, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, DOCKET NO. 218,252 “D”
HONORABLE JOHN C. DAVIDSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of James T. Genovese, Shannon J. Gremillion, and John E.
Conery, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Frank E. Barber
Attorney at Law
116 Field Street
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560-4487
(337) 256-8370
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Paris Madison

Linda Law Clark
DeCuir, Clark & Adams, L.L.P.
732 North Boulevard
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
(225) 346-8716
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
State of Louisiana – Military Department
Office of Risk Management on behalf of
the National Guard, and James Welch

Laurel I. White
Louisiana Department of Justice
Litigation Division
Post Office Box 1710
Alexandria, Louisiana 71309-1710
(318) 487-5944
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
State of Louisiana, through the Department
of Public Safety and Corrections,
Richard Stalder, T.W. Thompson, Ronnie Futrell
and William Black

GENOVESE, Judge.

Plaintiff, Paris Madison, appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing

his tort claims against the Defendants, the State of Louisiana, Military Department

(Military Department), the National Guard, and James Welch (now deceased)

based on prescription. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Madison was an inmate housed at the Work Training Facility North

(referred to as Dabadie), a prison operated by the Louisiana Department of

Corrections (DOC). Dabadie is adjacent to Camp Beauregard, a National Guard

Base operated by the Military Department which utilizes inmate labor from

Dabadie. On March 8, 2000, Mr. Madison was performing laundry duty at Camp

Beauregard, which entailed transporting baskets of laundry on the bed of a truck.

The truck, being driven by Mr. Welch, hit a hole in the road causing Mr. Madison

to fall from the vehicle and allegedly sustain injury.

After pursuing the mandatory administrative remedy procedure for inmates

against the DOC, Mr. Madison filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the

Nineteenth Judicial District Court (JDC) on July 7, 2000. In his Petition for

Judicial Review, Mr. Madison named Mr. Welch, whom he erroneously believed

to be a DOC employee, and the Commanding General, U.S. National Guard Base.1

Only the DOC was served with the Petition for Judicial Review.

On April 17, 2001, Mr. Madison converted his action in the Nineteenth JDC

into a tort claim against DOC and Mr. Welch, incorrectly identified as a DOC

employee, and the National Guard. Service was requested to be made on DOC,

Mr. Welch, and the National Guard.

1
Also named as defendants were Richard Stalder, Ronnie Futrell, T.W. Thompson, and
William Black; however, those claims are not relevant to the present proceedings.

The lawsuit in the Nineteenth JDC in East Baton Rouge Parish was

transferred to the Ninth JDC in Rapides Parish by an August 16, 2004 order of the

trial court. Once in the Ninth JDC, on April 11, 2005, Mr. Madison amended his

pleadings to add the Military Department as a Defendant and to assert its liability

for the negligent actions of Mr. Welch.

On August 28, 2012, a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary

Judgment was filed on behalf of the Military Department, the National Guard, and

Mr. Welch asserting alternative grounds. The trial court granted the motion,

dismissing Mr. Madison‟s claims based on prescription, and signed a judgment in

accordance therewith on October 9, 2012. Subsequently, Mr. Madison filed a

motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court. The trial court issued

Written Reasons for Denial of Motion for New Trial and Written Reasons for

Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment on December 14, 2012. Mr. Madison

appeals the October 9, 2012 judgment of the trial court.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On Appeal, Mr. Madison presents the following assignments of error for our

review:

I. The trial [court] erred in dismissing the STATE OF
LOUISIANA – MILITARY DEPARTMENT because the plaintiff,
after receiving reasonable knowledge of the involvement of the
STATE OF LOUISIANA – MILITARY DEPARTMENT as a
potential defendant filed suit within a year.

II. STATE OF LOUISIANA – MILITARY DEPARTMENT
answered without raising any service of process deficiencies and
therefore cannot be dismissed based on service of process
deficiencies.

III. The trial [court] erred in dismissing the National Guard and
James Welch, which defendants both answered the lawsuit and
waived any claim to service or process deficiencies.

2

LAW AND DISCUSSION

At the outset, we note that the parties dispute the appropriate standard of

review to be applied in this case. Mr. Madison argues that the appropriate standard

of review is de novo since the pleadings included a motion for summary judgment.

On the other hand, the Military Department, the National Guard, and Mr. Welch

argue that because the trial court granted the motion based on prescription, an

abuse of discretion and manifest error standard is appropriate.

In this case, the motion before the trial court was titled a Motion to Dismiss

and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, and evidence was introduced in support of

the motion. It is evident from the record that after considering the alternative

grounds asserted in the motion, the trial court‟s dismissal was based upon

prescription.

In Leger v. Sonnier Exterminating Co., 05-1291, p. 4 (La.App. 3
Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 158, 161, writ denied, 06-1033 (La. 6/23/06),
930 So.2d 982, this court set forth the appellate standard of review
applicable to a peremptory exception of prescription as follows:

Ordinarily, when an appeal involves a ruling on a
peremptory exception with contested issues of fact and
“[w]hen evidence is introduced and evaluated in the trial
court on a peremptory exception, the appellate court must
review the entire record to determine whether the trial
court manifestly erred with its factual conclusions.” Egle
v. Egle, 01-927, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/6/02), 817 So.2d
136, 139 (quoting Parker v. Buteau, 99-519, p. 3
(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 746 So.2d 127, 129).
However, in a case in which there are no contested issues
of fact and the only issue is the application of the law to
the undisputed facts, as in the case at bar, the appellate
court must decide whether the lower court‟s decision is
legally correct or incorrect. Sieferman v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 01-439 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/01), 796
So.2d 833 (citing Huddleston v. Farmers-Merchants
Bank & Trust Co., 00-640 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772
So.2d 356).

State ex rel. Jackson v. Jackson, 12-999, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/16/13), 110 So.3d

597, 599-600.

3

Mr. Madison first argues that a dismissal of the Military Department was

erroneous because suit was filed against this entity “within one year after receiving

reasonable knowledge of the involvement” of this entity. We disagree.

Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315 states that “[d]elictual actions are subject

to a liberative prescription of one year. This prescription commences to run from

the day injury or damage is sustained.” In the instant case, Mr. Madison claims he

was injured when he fell from the vehicle transporting laundry on March 8, 2000.

Accordingly, it was incumbent upon him to institute an action against the Military

Department by March 8, 2001, which he failed to do.

The initial step taken by Mr. Madison was seeking redress through the

Commissioner‟s Court. This action, taken on March 21, 2000, was in the course of

the administrative remedy procedure for inmates. La.R.S. 15:1171-72. This was

an administrative proceeding only involving the DOC. The Military Department

was not a party to this action.

The second step taken by Mr. Madison was the filing of a Petition for

Judicial Review in the Nineteenth JDC on July 7, 2000. That petition also did not

include the Military Department as a party.

The next step to be taken by Mr. Madison was converting the action in the

Nineteenth JDC into a tort action on April 17, 2001. As of this date, the Military

Department had still not been named as a party to any claims being asserted by

Mr. Madison.

On April 11, 2005, Mr. Madison amended his petition to name, for the first

time, the Military Department as a Defendant. Thus, the record clearly reflects that

the Military Department was not brought into this action until April 11, 2005, long

after the one year prescriptive period had expired.

4

Mr. Madison contends that the Military Department knew of this action and,

thus, was not “surprised by being „added‟ as a defendant in 2005.” Further, he

argues that “[t]his failure to make a technical distinction between the party

defendants herein should not be used as a vessel to now make some technical

objection to the failure to name a party at some later date.” However, the Military

Department is a completely different and separate entity, unrelated to the DOC,

which was the sole party to the administrative proceeding. The Military

Department is also a completely different and separate entity from the National

Guard, which was named as a Defendant when the conversion to a tort suit

occurred. While knowledge of the distinction and association between these

entities may have been somewhat difficult to ascertain, Mr. Madison failed to

name the Military Department as a defendant until 2005.

Therefore, Mr. Madison argues, in the alternative, that his claim against the

Military Department is timely under the theory that it “relates backs to the original

filing and cures the prescription problem[,]” citing La.Code Civ.P. art. 1153.2

Mr. Madison fails to identify the “original pleading.” However, for the 2005

amendment to relate back and defeat the exception of prescription, the appeal of

the administrative proceedings would have had to have been considered the

“original pleading[,]” since the tort action in April 2001 was filed after the

prescriptive period had run. We find no merit to this contention.

The Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d

1083 (La.1983), is the seminal case relative to the application of La.Code Civ.P.

2
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1153 provides that “[w]hen the action or
defense asserted in the amended petition or answer arises out of the conduct, transaction, or
occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates
back to the date of filing the original pleading.”

5

art. 1153 and the relation back theory. In Ray, 434 So.2d at 1086-87, the supreme

court stated:

In keeping with these precepts, we establish the following
criteria for determining whether art. 1153 allows an amendment which
changes the identity of the party or parties sued to relate back to the
date of filing of the original petition:

(1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction
or occurrence set forth in the original pleading;

(2) The purported substitute defendant must have received
notice of the institution of the action such that he will not be
prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits;

(3) The purported substitute defendant must know or should
have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the
proper party defendant, the action would have been brought against
him;

(4) The purported substitute defendant must not be a wholly
new or unrelated defendant, since this would be tantamount to
assertion of a new cause of action which would have otherwise
prescribed.

In the instant case, the Ray factors are not met. First, the original action was

an administrative proceeding involving only Mr. Madison, a prisoner, who sought

redress against the DOC. The second action, asserted in the district court, initially

sought only a judicial review of the administrative proceeding. Once converted,

that action then included a tort claim, and, although it mentions the same accident

involving Mr. Madison, it then sought compensation from various parties for the

personal injuries he allegedly sustained. The nature of the action was different, the

remedy sought was different, and the parties were different. The Military

Department did not have notice of the institution of the administrative proceedings,

and it did not have notice of the tort claim until Mr. Madison named it as an

additional defendant in 2005. Additionally, Mr. Madison did not simply

“misname” a party such that the Military Department should have known that an

action would have been brought against it. To the contrary, the Military

6

Department is a “wholly new or unrelated defendant” from the DOC, and

Mr. Madison‟s tort claim is a “new cause of action” from that asserted in the

administrative proceedings against the DOC. Given the facts, and based upon Ray

and the subsequent jurisprudence applying La.Code Civ.P. art. 1153, we find that

Mr. Madison‟s claims against the Military Department do not relate back to the

filing of the original pleading such that it cures the running of the prescriptive

period.

In his second assignment of error, Mr. Madison argues that the Military

Department waived its right to challenge any service of process deficiencies by

answering the lawsuit. We find this argument to be misplaced.

The trial court‟s dismissal of the Military Department was not on the

grounds of service of process deficiencies. Rather, the trial court was clear that it

was dismissing the Military Department because Mr. Madison‟s claims against it

“had prescribed before proper service was made.” Louisiana Code of Civil

Procedure Article 927 identifies prescription as a peremptory exception which

“may be pleaded at any stage of the proceeding in the trial court prior to a

submission of the case for a decision and may be filed with the declinatory

exception or with the dilatory exception, or both.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 928.

Therefore, the exceptions of prescription were timely raised.

Additionally, Mr. Madison‟s reliance on Taylor v. LSU Medical Center,

38,944 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/14/04), 892 So.2d 581, writ denied, 05-480 (La.

5/20/05), 902 So.2d 1049, and its discussion of La.R.S. 13:5107 are not dispositive

of the issues before this court. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:5107 addresses time

constraints for a defendant to raise issues relative to service. However, in this case,

the trial court‟s dismissal was not grounded upon any procedural deficiencies in

the service itself; rather, the dismissal was grounded upon Mr. Madison‟s failure to

7

timely serve the Military Department within the one year prescriptive period. As

correctly expressed by the trial court, the Military Department was not properly

served until after the prescriptive period had run.

Mr. Madison‟s final assignment of error asserts error by the trial court in

dismissing the National Guard and Mr. Welch, again on the grounds that any claim

of services of process deficiencies were waived by the filing of answers.

However, as with the Military Department, the dismissal of the National Guard and

Mr. Welch was not based upon deficient service of process; rather, the grounds for

the dismissal of these Defendants was based upon Mr. Madison‟s failure to timely

file suit within the one year prescriptive period. An exception of prescription is not

waived by the filing of an answer. La.Code Civ.P. art. 928.

Mr. Madison argues that Mr. Welch was named within the one year

prescriptive period since he was named in the administrative proceeding.

Although Mr. Welch was included and listed as an employee of the DOC, this

designation was erroneous. Mr. Welch was improperly named as he was not an

employee of DOC, he was not a party to that proceeding, and he was not served in

that proceeding. Also, when Mr. Welch was named in Mr. Madison‟s Petition for

Judicial Review filed in the Nineteenth JDC, he was still erroneously identified as

a DOC employee and service upon him was not perfected. Although Mr. Welch

was named in the tort suit in 2001 (after the prescriptive period had run), he was

still incorrectly identified as a DOC employee and service upon him was requested

through DOC. It was not until April 2005 that Mr. Madison named, correctly

identified, and served Mr. Welch. Given that the one year prescriptive period ran

as of March 8, 2001, the claims against Mr. Welch were untimely. La.Civ.Code

art. 3492.

8

The National Guard was also first brought into these proceedings in April

2001. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the claims against this entity were

likewise untimely. Id.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

dismissing the claims asserted by Paris Madison against the State of Louisiana,

Military Department, the National Guard, and James Welch based on prescription.

All costs of these proceedings are assessed to Paris Madison.

AFFIRMED.

9