NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NUMBER 2019 CA 1512

TIMOTHY L. GRAY

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

Judgment Rendered: JUL 2 3 2020 7GX ) C K X X

On appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket Number C682670

Honorable Richard " Chip" Moore, Judge Presiding

Timothy L. Gray Plaintiff/Appellant Ruston, LA In Proper Person

Elizabeth B. Dessellee Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY, AND BURRIS,' JJ.

GUIDRY, J.

This is an appeal from a trial court judgment dismissing a prisoner' s suit for judicial review.2 For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiff, Timothy L. Gray, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( DPSC), filed a petition for judicial review of the administrative decision rendered on his Disciplinary Board Appeal No. DWCC- 2019- 033.

On February 11, 2019, Mr. Gray was issued a disciplinary report for violating Rule No. 1 of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders, Contraband. 3 Mr. Gray was found to be in possession of a piece of paper with cocaine on it.4 Following a hearing, the Disciplinary Board found Mr. Gray guilty and sentenced him to forfeiture of 90 days good time and eight weeks loss of

canteen privileges. Mr. Gray appealed the decision to the warden, who found the disciplinary report to be clear, concise, and providing convincing evidence of the rule violation as charged. Mr. Gray then appealed the decision to the Secretary of the DPSC, who denied his appeal.

On May 6, 2019, Mr. Gray filed a petition for judicial review. The

Commissioner issued a recommendation and concluded that Mr. Gray was in violation of Rule No. 1, Contraband. The Commissioner further concluded that the

DPSC' s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of Mr. Gray' s rights and recommended that the appeal be dismissed. After a de novo review of the

record, the trial court, on August 26, 2019, adopted the reasons of the

Z Although DPSC was not actually named as a defendant in Mr. Gray' s petition, in accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)( 1)( b), DPSC is the only proper defendant in an administrative appeal filed by a prisoner. Therefore, the Commissioner issued a service order, ordering service on the DPSC through defendant, James LeBlanc.

3 See LAC 22: I: 341( 1).

Commissioner, affirmed the DPSC' s decision, and dismissed Mr. Gray' s appeal with prejudice. Mr. Gray then filed the instant appeal.

DISCUSSION

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

review by the district court, which functions as an appellate court when reviewing DPSC' s administrative decisions. Judicial review is mandated to be conducted by the trial court without a jury and must be confined to the record. La. R. S.

15: 1177( A)(5). Specifically, the court may reverse or modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings 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 ( 6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. La. R.S.

15: 1177( A)(9). On review of a district court' s judgment in a suit for judicial

review under La. R.S. 15: 1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal 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. McCoy v. Stalder, 99- 1747, p. 6 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 22/ 00), 770 So. 2d 447, 450- 451.

In this appeal, Mr. Gray contends that his due process rights were violated, and that the penalties imposed by the DPSC should be reversed. s Mr. Gray argues that he was not in possession of an illegal substance, was not screened for drugs,

of paper.6

After reviewing the administrative record and considering Mr. Gray' s arguments, the Commissioner noted, " Petitioner' s argument during the disciplinary

hearing contradicts his current contention. At the hearing, Petitioner stated that he picked up the piece of paper... thinking it was a number." The Commissioner

further noted that by having cocaine under his immediate control, Mr. Gray had clearly violated Rule No. 1, Contraband.

After our review of the record herein, we find no error in the trial court' s

finding that Mr. Gray' s suit for judicial review should be dismissed with prejudice under La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9). 7 Based upon the information contained in the

record, it is clear that Mr. Gray was in possession of a piece of paper found to be positive for cocaine. After a full hearing, the DPSC concluded that Mr. Gray had violated the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Offenders. Mr. Gray' s arguments lack merit.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the August 26, 2019

judgment of the trial court that affirmed the decision of the Department of Public

Safety and Corrections and dismissed Timothy L. Gray' s suit with prejudice. All

costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff/appellant, Timothy L. Gray.

AFFIRMED.