Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 21, 2000; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Appellant, an inmate at David Wade Correctional Center (DWCC), sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) for the return of confiscated personal property, filing a petition for injunctive relief in the Second Judicial District Court in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. The court dismissed the petition due to improper venue, which the appellant is now appealing. The initial administrative request for remedy filed by the petitioner on April 24, 2000, regarding the confiscation from March 6, 2000, was deemed untimely and dismissed within a day, as it exceeded the 30-day limit set forth in the Department of Public Safety and Corrections Disciplinary Rules. The petitioner argued that the administrative remedy was not exclusive and claimed the confiscation lacked probable cause, a hearing, and policy justification. However, the district court ruled that venue for such claims lies exclusively in the 19th Judicial District Court as per Louisiana law. The petitioner’s subsequent motion for a new trial was denied. The relevant statute, La. R.S. 15:1172, mandates that inmates exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing claims in court. It further specifies that any judicial review of an adverse administrative decision must occur within 30 days in the 19th Judicial District Court. The court found the appellant’s reliance on a previous case, Marler v. Petty, regarding concurrent jurisdiction to be incorrect, reiterating that the exclusive venue for such grievances is the 19th Judicial District Court. Thus, the appeal was affirmed.
The majority in Marler upheld the findings of the district and appellate courts that the plaintiff's suit was improperly filed in the wrong venue. Chief Justice Calogero dissented regarding the majority's view that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was through the administrative process outlined in La. R.S. 15:1177 et seq. Subsequent cases, such as Edmond v. Department of Public Safety, Gongre v. State, and Washington v. Secretary, have aligned with the majority decision in Marler. The appellant argued that the district court should have transferred the case to a court with proper jurisdiction, referencing La. C.C.P. Arts. 121 and 932, which allow for transfer in cases of improper venue. Marler established a jurisprudential rule that if a plaintiff did not knowingly file in the wrong venue, transfer is appropriate. However, if the plaintiff knowingly files in the wrong venue, dismissal is warranted. The record indicated that the appellant was aware of the venue issues when filing in the Second Judicial District Court, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's dismissal based on improper venue. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
