Kevin Cavell v. Kevin Patrick Johnson, Jr.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 26-117

KEVIN CAVELL

VERSUS

KEVIN PATRICK JOHNSON, JR., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. C-2026-067
HONORABLE JUDI F. ABRUSLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

GARY J. ORTEGO

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Gary J. Ortego, and Guy E. Bradberry,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Stacy Christopher Auzenne
Auzenne Law Firm
P. O. Box 11817
Alexandria, LA 71315
(318) 880-0087
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:
Kevin Cavell

Kevin Patrick Johnson, Jr.
In Proper Person
197 Joan Lane
Oakdale, LA 71463
(318) 463-0122

Carlo Gulina
Louisiana Secretary of State
8585 Archives Ave.
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
(225) 287-7475
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:
Louisiana Secretary of State

Stacey C. Hurst, Allen Parish Clerk of Court
Allen Parish Clerk of Court
P. O. Box 248
Oberlin, LA 70655
(337) 639-4351

ORTEGO, Judge.

The plaintiff, Kevin Cavell, appeals a judgment of the trial court dismissing

his petition challenging the qualifications of Kevin Patrick Johnson, Jr. to stand for

election as the Police Chief of Oakdale.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Kevin Cavell (“Mr. Cavell”), qualified as a candidate for the

position of Oakdale Chief of Police on February 11, 2026 for the May 16, 2026

primary election. The defendant, Kevin Patrick Johnson, Jr. (“Mr. Johnson”), also

qualified as a candidate for Oakdale Chief of Police on the same date. When

qualifying ended on February 13, 2026, Mr. Cavell and Mr. Johnson were the only

candidates to qualify.

On February 20, 2026, Mr. Cavell, as a qualified elector in Oakdale, filed a

petition challenging Mr. Johnson’s qualification as a candidate. Mr. Cavell alleged

that Mr. Johnson is the Deputy Chief of Police of Oakdale. He argued that the

Deputy Chief of Police in Oakdale is a classified or civil service position, and

people employed in the classified civil service may not qualify to run for elected

office, citing La.Const. art. 10, § 9.1

The trial court held a hearing on February 24, 2026. The court found that the

Deputy Chief of Police is not a civil service position and dismissed Mr. Cavell’s

petition. Mr. Cavell has timely perfected the instant appeal.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Mr. Cavell asserts one assignment of error:

The Honorable Trial Court committed legal error when she
ignored the Louisiana Constitution, the Louisiana Revised Statutes,
and numerous Louisiana Attorney General Opinions related to the
prohibitions of Classified Civil Servants running for political office,

1
Mr. Cavell also alleged violations of the Louisiana Ethics Code in his petition, but those
claims were abandoned at the hearing in the trial court.

and allowed the Defendant to remain a candidate for Oakdale Police
Chief, even though he is a classified civil servant.

APPLICABLE LAW

Courts must liberally interpret the laws governing the conduct of elections so

as to promote candidacy rather than defeat it. Russell v. Goldsby, 00-2595 (La.

9/22/00), 780 So.2d 1048. Mr. Cavell’s petition objecting to Mr. Johnson’s

candidacy is based on La.R.S. 18:492(A)(4), in that he claims that Mr. Johnson is

prohibited by law from becoming a candidate for the office for which he qualified.

The plaintiff bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to show the

existence of a contested fact. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the

burden shifts to the defendant to present evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s case.

Landiak v. Richmond, 05-758 (La. 3/30/05), 899 So.2d 535. “When the trial court’s

decision is based on an erroneous application of law rather than on a valid exercise

of discretion, the decision is not entitled to deference by the reviewing court.”

Ramirez v. Watkins, 23-411, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/23/23), 369 So.3d 505, 509.

Louisiana Constitution Article 10, § 9(A) states:

No member of a civil service commission and no officer or
employee in the classified service shall participate or engage in
political activity; be a candidate for nomination or election to
public office except to seek election as the classified state employee
serving on the State Civil Service Commission; or be a member of any
national, state, or local committee of a political party or faction; make
or solicit contributions for any political party, faction, or candidate; or
take active part in the management of the affairs of a political party,
faction, candidate, or any political campaign, except to exercise his
right as a citizen to express his opinion privately, to serve as a
commissioner or official watcher at the polls, and to cast his vote as
he desires.

The civil service provisions of small municipalities with a population

between 7,000 and 13,000 as of the last decennial census are governed by La.R.S.

2

33:2531, et seq. 2 “Classified service” is defined at La.R.S. 33.2533(7), which

states:

“Classified service” means every appointive office and position
of trust or employment in the municipal government, parish
government, or fire protection district government which has as its
primary duty one of the functions specifically set forth to be included
in the classified service by the provisions of this Part; and excludes all
elective and appointive offices and positions of trust or employment
which have a primary duty specifically set forth to be included in the
unclassified service by the provisions of this Part.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:2541(A) sets forth the offices and positions which

fall within the classified service and includes those which have as their “primary

duty and responsibility one of the following: (1) The chief and assistant chiefs; the

intradepartmental division, bureau, squad, platoon and company officers of the fire

and police department[; and] (2) Fire fighting and police.”

The position of Deputy Chief of Police for the City of Oakdale was created

by La.R.S. 33:2541.1:

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary,
the governing authority may create, by ordinance, the position of
deputy chief of police in accordance with the provisions of this
Section. The position shall be filled on a competitive basis from a list
of eligibles as provided for in R.S. 33:2551(4), and the right of
selection, appointment, supervision, and discharge for such position
shall be vested in the chief of police, subject to approval of the
appointing authority. In addition, the governing authority shall
establish the duties and responsibilities of the deputy chief of police in
the ordinance creating the position. Such duties and responsibilities
may include direct supervision over all positions in the classified
service below the rank of chief of police. The position of deputy chief
of police is not the same as the position of assistant chief of police
which is in the classified police service pursuant to this Part.
B. (1)(a) The deputy chief of police shall have not less than
eight years of full-time law enforcement experience and shall at least

2
While the City of Oakdale had a population of less than 7,000 as of the 2020 census, its
population as of 2000 was over 7,000. As it had established a civil service system prior to July 1,
2006, the provisions of Part III, Chapter 5, Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes continue to
be applicable to Oakdale. La.R.S. 33:2531.1.
3

hold the rank of sergeant in the classified police service at the time of
his appointment.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subparagraph (a) of this
Paragraph, in the city of Jennings, the qualifications for the position of
deputy chief of police shall be not less than five years of full-time law
enforcement experience.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subparagraph (a) of this
Paragraph, in the city of St. Martinville, the qualifications for the
position of deputy chief of police shall be not less than five years of
full-time law enforcement experience.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subparagraph (a) of this
Paragraph, in the city of Oakdale, the deputy chief of police shall have
not less than three years of full-time law enforcement experience and
shall have successfully completed a certified training program
approved by the Council on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(2) Any person who holds the position of deputy chief of police
may, while holding such position, apply for admission to the
promotional examination for the class next higher than that from
which he was appointed as deputy chief of police. However, the name
and score of any deputy chief of police shall not be certified to the
appointing authority by the civil service board as eligible for
appointment to a position of the promotional class, and his name and
score shall be eligible for certification, in accordance with the
maximum period for which a name may remain on the eligibility list
in accordance with the provisions of this Part, only upon demotion to
a position of the class from which he was appointed as deputy chief of
police.
(3) Eligibility for admission to the competitive test for deputy
chief of police shall be limited to members of the same department as
the chief of police at the time of appointment.
C. (1)(a) Any person who is appointed from a position in the
classified police service to serve as deputy chief of police shall not
forfeit his departmental or promotional seniority accumulated to the
date of his appointment, and he shall continue to accumulate
departmental or promotional seniority in accordance with the
provisions of this Part during the time he holds the position of deputy
chief of police.
(b)(i) The deputy chief of police shall serve indefinitely in the
classified competitive position and shall be evaluated three years from
the date of his initial appointment by the chief of police. Thereafter,
the deputy chief of police shall be evaluated every year by the chief of

4

police. After each and every evaluation by the chief of police, the
chief may reconfirm the deputy chief for another one-year period or
may, at his discretion, demote the deputy chief to his former class of
position. The demotion described in this Item shall not constitute
corrective or disciplinary action, and the classified employee shall not
have appeal rights in regards to such action.
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of Item (i) of this
Subparagraph, in the city of Oakdale, the deputy chief of police shall
serve indefinitely in the classified competitive position and shall be
evaluated every year by the chief of police. After each evaluation by
the chief of police, the chief may reconfirm the deputy chief for
another one-year period, or may, at his discretion, demote the deputy
chief to his former class of positions.
(2) If any such person is demoted as the result of such
evaluation, or otherwise vacates the position on the approval of the
chief of police, he shall be demoted to a position in the class he held
immediately preceding his appointment as deputy chief of police. If a
deputy chief of police is subjected to corrective or disciplinary action,
he shall have the same rights as any other employee in the municipal
fire and police civil service.
DISCUSSION

Mr. Johnson testified at the hearing below that he is currently employed as

the Deputy Chief of Police for the Oakdale Police Department. Mr. Cavell

introduced a copy of the statute creating the position of Deputy Chief to argue that

the position is clearly in the classified service, indicating that it is a “classified

competitive position.” Mr. Johnson testified that the local civil service board

indicated Deputy Chief was not a classified position. The current interim Oakdale

Chief of Police, Webster Chamberlain, testified that he understood the purpose of

creating the Deputy Chief position was to remove it from the requirements of the

civil service system so that the previous chief could appoint someone to the

position.

The question presented to this court is whether the Deputy Chief for the

Oakdale Police Department is “an officer or employee in the classified service”

5

such that La.Const. art. 10, § 9 prohibits Mr. Johnson from qualifying as a

candidate for election to public office, in this case Police Chief of Oakdale. The

trial court found that Mr. Cavell failed to prove that the Deputy Chief position was

in the classified service. Thus, the trial court’s finding that the Deputy Chief

position was not a classified service position was a factual determination.

After review of the entire record, and given the testimony of Mr. Johnson

and Police Chief Chamberlain, along with the other evidence submitted at the

hearing, we find the record supports the trial court’s finding that Mr. Cavell failed

to prove that the Deputy Chief position was a classified civil servant. We further

note that the term “classified competitive position” is not defined in the text of the

legislation which originally created the position of Deputy Chief (2010 La. Acts

No. 748, § 1) or the legislation which created the position of Deputy Chief for

Oakdale (2021 La. Acts No. 274, § 1). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment of February 24, 2026, in its entirety.

DECREE

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and Kevin Patrick Johnson, Jr.’s

name shall appear on the ballot for the May 16, 2026 primary election for Oakdale

Police Chief. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Patrick Cavell.

AFFIRMED.

6