235 So. 3d 1200
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Korey Bossier slipped and fell in his Lafayette Parish Correctional Center (LPCC) cell on Aug 31, 2015 and Sept 17, 2015, allegedly due to water from nearby showers.
- On intake Plaintiff received a 2012 LPCC Handbook describing the grievance procedure; Defendants revised the Handbook on Sept 8, 2015 and say Plaintiff received the revision (Defendants say change was merely electronic submission).
- Plaintiff contends neither version of the Handbook provides an administrative procedure to pursue a personal-injury/tort claim while incarcerated.
- Defendants filed dilatory exceptions of prematurity and prescription, arguing an administrative remedy was available and Plaintiff failed to exhaust it before suing.
- Trial court granted the exceptions, dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice; Plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed whether an administrative remedy was available and whether exhaustion was required before judicial suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an available administrative remedy precluded suit (prematurity) | Handbook does not provide a procedure for personal-injury/tort claims; no administrative remedy exists | Handbook grievance definition ("operation of the LPCC") and statute/regulation create an available administrative remedy for such claims | Reversed: handbook language is ambiguous/silent as to tort claims; defendants failed to prove an administrative remedy was available |
| Whether Plaintiff needed to exhaust administrative remedies before suing | Exhaustion not required because no administrative remedy was promulgated for tort claims | Exhaustion required under La. R.S. 15:1171 and related ARP regulations | Plaintiff not required to exhaust; right to sue in district court preserved |
| Whether Handbook revision (Sept 8, 2015) affected procedural obligations | Revision was minor and Plaintiff did not receive it; irrelevant because no remedy exists for tort claims | Revision changed grievance submission method (paper to electronic) and applied | Court found revision irrelevant — substantive absence/ambiguity of remedy dispositive |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice and costs was appropriate | Dismissal improper because prematurity exception fails when no administrative remedy exists | Dismissal appropriate for failure to exhaust/prescription | Appellate court vacated dismissal, remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., 966 So.2d 519 (La. 2007) (explains when an action is premature and prematurity exception purpose)
- Crooks v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 155 So.3d 686 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2014) (standards for reviewing prematurity exceptions)
- Ngo v. Estes, 882 So.2d 1262 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2004) (burden shifting for proving availability and exhaustion of administrative remedies)
- Cheron v. LCS Corrections Servs., Inc., 872 So.2d 1094 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2004) (discusses requirement to use administrative remedies prior to suit)
- Rico v. Cappaert Manufactured Hous., Inc., 903 So.2d 1284 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2005) (function of prematurity exception)
- Thibodeaux v. Donnell, 9 So.3d 120 (La. 2009) (statutory interpretation is a question of law)