NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2022 CA 0880

JASON J. SPIKES

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND r Pt4/( CORRECTIONS

DATE of JUDGMENT:• FEB 2 4 2023

ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA NUMBER 715967, SECTION 32

HONORABLE ROBERT MORRISON, JUDGE AD HOC

Jason Jarrell Spikes Plaintiff A - ppellant Angie, Louisiana Pro Se

Jonathan R. Vining Counsel for Defendant -Appellee Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND RESTER, JJ.

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

Chutz, J.

Jason Jarrell Spikes, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" DPSC"), appeals a district court judgment

dismissing, without prejudice, his petition for judicial review of Administrative Remedy Procedure ( ARP) No. RCC -2021- 591 for lack of jurisdiction due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm.

4n September 20, 2021, Spikes filed ARP No. RCC -2021- 591. It appears he

claimed therein that he was beaten by several correctional officers, resulting in injuries including a swollen eye and a broken jaw requiring hospitalization. Spikes

alleged he was also subsequently threatened with further bodily harm by high- ranking correctional officers. Spikes sought civil, criminal, and administrative

relief, as well as payment of his medical bills.

After receiving ARP No. RCC -2021- 591, DPSC informed Spikes the ARP was being placed on " backlog" because he already had another ARP pending in the system.

Spikes was further informed he could withdraw the previously pending ARP if he wished to have ARP No. RCC -2021- 0591 handled immediately. 4n

February 14, 2022, Spikes filed a petition for judicial review in the 19th Judicial District Court seeking review of ARP No. RCC -2021- 591. In the petition, Spikes

made no reference to any final agency decision on ARP No. RCC -2021- 591. Upon

review, a 19th JDC commissioner' concluded Spikes' petition failed to comply with the district court' s local rules, which required he file written proof that he had exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the ARP in accordance with

La. R.S. 15: 1172 and 1184. Accordingly, the commissioner issued an order to Spikes on February 16, 2022, to submit such proof within 15 days and informed him the failure to do so could result in dismissal of the suit. In response, Spikes submitted

591 would be accepted once the other " active" ARP he had in the system was

exhausted.

On March 15, 2022, the commissioner issued a screening recommendation to the district court in accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1178 and 1184- 88. Therein, the

commissioner determined the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 because Spikes failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to instituting suit, i.e., his suit was filed prematurely. Thus, in

accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1178, the commissioner recommended Spikes' suit be

dismissed without prejudice.

In an apparent response to the commissioner' s screening recommendation, Spikes filed a motion requesting his suit be held open until he had exhausted his administrative remedies.

He attached a letter to the motion showing DPSC had responded to his request that ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 " be answered" by informing him ARP No. RCC- 2021- 591was backlogged and had not yet been accepted because

his prior ARP had not been exhausted at that time.

On May 16, 2022, the district court signed a judgment adopting the recommendation of the commissioner and dismissing, without prejudice, Spikes' petition for judicial review of ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with La. R.S. 15: 1172( C). Spikes appealed this judgment.

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

15: 1171- 1179, provides that DPSC may adopt an administrative remedy procedure for receiving, hearing, and disposing of any and all complaints and grievances by offenders against the state, the governor, and/ or DPSC or its employees. The

adopted procedures are the exclusive remedy for handling the complaints and grievances to which they apply. La. R. S. 15: 1171; Spikes v Louisiana Department ofPuh. Safety & Corrections, 22- 0504 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 4/ 22), So. 3d ,

2022 WL 16705741, at * 2.

Pursuant to the rules and regulations promulgated by DPSC, offenders must exhaust a two-step ARP before they can proceed with a suit in federal or state court.

See La. R.S. 15. 1176; LAC 22: I.325( F)( 3)( a)( viii). If an offender fails to exhaust available administrative remedies, the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to

review the claim. Spikes, So. 3d at , 2022 WL 16705741, at * 2; Dickens v

Louisiana Correctional lnstitute for Women, 11 - 0 176 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 9/ 14/ 11), 77 So. 3d 70, 74- 75. Under LAC 22. I. 325( E), exhaustion of available administrative

remedies " only occurs when an offender files a timely and procedurally proper request for remedy, which after it is accepted, is addressed on the merits at Doth the first and second step." ( Emphasis added.)

In the event an offender submits multiple ARP requests during the review of a previous ARP request, the subsequent ARP requests will be backlogged and set

aside for handling at such time as the ARP request currently in the system has been exhausted at the second step or until time limits to proceed from the first step to the second step have lapsed. LAC 22: I.325( F)( 3)( a)( ix). This regulation applies to

situations where an ARP request for relief has been accepted at the initial step of the ARP and a distinct, subsequent ARP request for relief is filed. Spikes, So. 3d at

2022 WL 16705741, at * 2; Vincent v Stalder, 04- 1750 ( La. App. 1st Cir.

9/ 23/ 05), 923 So.2d 108, 110. Additionally, the time limits provided for DPSC to respond to an offender' s ARP request for relief do not operate to prevent DPSC from

backlogging multiple requests for administrative relief. The time periods provided by DPSC' s regulations for handling ARPs apply only to ARP claims accepted and

M processed by DPSC. 2 Spikes, So. 3d at , 2022 WL 16705741, at * 2; Vincent,

923 So. 2d at 110- 11. Moreover, DPSC' s regulation regarding backlogging of multiple claims is a valid and reasonable exercise of the authority granted to DPSC. Id.

In the instant case, the record reflects Spikes' ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 was

placed on backlog when it was received by DPSC on September 20, 2021, because he already had a prior ARP being processed. Nevertheless, without waiting for ARP No. RCC -2021- 591 to be accepted by DPSC and processed, Spikes filed this petition for judicial review on February 14, 2022, while the ARP was still backlogged. This

petition, which was filed before any agency decision had been made, was

unquestionably filed prior to the exhaustion of Spikes' administrative remedies.

Thus, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review ARP number

RCC -2021- 591 and properly dismissed Spikes' petition for judicial review without prejudice. See Spikes, So. 3d at , 2022 WL 16705741, at * 2; Dickens, 77 So. 3d at 74- 75.

On appeal, Spikes requested additional time to exhaust his administrative

remedies so that he could comply with the order of the 19th JDC. 3 He attached a copy of a letter from DPSC, dated July 22, 2022, indicating ARP -2021- 591 had been removed from backlog, accepted by DPSC, and was being processed. In the letter,

DPSC informed Spikes his request to proceed to the second step had been received,

R and he would receive a response within the applicable delays. Regardless, this

information regarding subsequent events is irrelevant because Spikes had already filed his petition for judicial review prior to the exhaustion of his administrative remedies. See Spikes, So -3d at , 2022 WL 16705741, at * 2.

For these reasons, the May 16 2022 judgment of the district court dismissing Spikes' petition for judicial review, without prejudice, is affirmed in accordance

with Uniform Rules -- Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 1( B). All costs of this appeal

are assessed to Jason Jarrell Spikes.

AFFIRMED,

rel