263 So. 3d 576
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Korey Bossier sued Sheriff Mark Garber and others after slipping and falling in his LPCC cell on Aug. 31 and Sept. 17, 2015, alleging water from nearby showers caused the injuries.
- Plaintiff had received the 2012 LPCC Handbook grievance procedure; defendants revised the Handbook on Sept. 8, 2015 (changing how grievances are filed) and claim plaintiff did not receive the revision.
- Defendants filed exceptions of prematurity and prescription, arguing plaintiff failed to exhaust the LPCC administrative remedy (grievance) before suing; trial court granted the exceptions and dismissed plaintiff’s suit.
- The Handbook grievance language defines a grievance as complaints about rules, procedures, deputy misconduct, or operation of the LPCC and prescribes an internal chain of review (deputy → ARP officer → lieutenant → jail commander) with 14-day responses.
- The Court en banc reversed, finding defendants failed to prove an administrative remedy for personal injury claims was available and that the Handbook language was ambiguous and did not give meaningful notice that tort claims had to be filed via the grievance process; defendants also deviated from their asserted procedure by involving a risk manager in settlement discussions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s suit was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Bossier: Handbook is ambiguous and does not provide a procedure for filing personal-injury claims; thus no available remedy to exhaust | Garber: Handbook grievance covers "operation of the LPCC" and requires exhaustion under La. R.S. 15:1171–1172 | Reversed: defendants failed to prove an available administrative remedy; suit not premature |
| Whether Handbook provided meaningful notice that personal-injury claims must be filed via grievance procedure | Bossier: Language does not clearly notify inmates personal-injury/tort claims are governed by the ARP | Garber: Grievance covers facility operations and thus encompasses such claims | Held for Bossier: language ambiguous and inadequate under due process to preclude court access |
| Whether defendants’ conduct estops them from invoking the grievance requirement | Bossier: defendants’ risk manager negotiated settlement with plaintiff’s counsel, departing from Handbook, so defendants cannot benefit from the procedure | Garber: (implicit) Handbook remains controlling despite practices | Held for Bossier: defendants deviated from procedure; failure to follow own process cannot benefit them |
| Whether statutory/regulatory provisions invoked by defendants (La. R.S. 15:1171; DOC regs) preempt plaintiff’s right to sue | Bossier: LPCC did not promulgate clear ARP for personal-injury claims; statutes/regulations do not apply absent clear notice and procedure | Garber: Statute and DOC ARP require exhaustion and provide exclusive remedy when promulgated | Held for Bossier: statutory scheme inapplicable because LPCC failed to promulgate clear, applicable ARP for tort claims |
Key Cases Cited
- LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., 966 So.2d 519 (La. 2007) (prematurity exception tests ripeness and unmet prerequisites)
- Wilson v. City of New Orleans, 479 So.2d 891 (La. 1985) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Pete v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 247 So.3d 1084 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2018) (agency’s failure to follow its own procedures cannot benefit it)
- Stokes v. Strain, 768 So.2d 619 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2000) (if sheriff fails to adopt/implement CARP, inmate’s access to courts is unaffected)
- Wallace v. GEO Group, Inc., 84 So.3d 750 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2012) (prisons have duty to inform inmates of administrative-review procedures)