Hatcher v. Rouse, 211 So. 3d 431

Inmate Gerald Hatcher filed a writ of mandamus seeking unspecified coroner records (referencing item number H3007087) after his conviction became final and he allegedly requested records under La. R.S. 44:32.
Orleans Parish Coroner Dr. Jeffrey Rouse responded that his office had no records tied to the provided item number and asked for more specific information; he suggested the records might be with the City or the District Attorney.
The coroner’s counsel requested additional details and asked whether Hatcher was an incarcerated felon who had exhausted appeals (per La. R.S. 44:31.1); Hatcher did not provide further identifying information.
The coroner moved the trial court to dismiss via a dilatory exception of unauthorized use of a summary proceeding; the trial court maintained the exception and dismissed the writ.
The appellate court held the trial court erred to the extent it found mandamus procedurally improper, but affirmed dismissal because the coroner’s written response complied with La. R.S. 44:34 (certifying non-possession and explaining reasons) and the coroner could not produce records he did not have.
The court also affirmed denial of civil penalties, finding no abuse of discretion given the coroner’s reasonable efforts and the record uncertainty about timeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedure to seek public records	Hatcher: mandamus is appropriate to compel production under Public Records Law	Rouse: procedural defect — issue should be in ordinary post-conviction or other forum; challenged via dilatory exception	Court: mandamus is an appropriate summary proceeding, so exception on that ground was incorrect
Whether coroner possessed responsive records	Hatcher: coroner has forensic records (item H3007087) used at trial and must produce them	Rouse: no records correlate to the item number; records may be held by City or DA; requested more specifics	Court: Rouse adequately certified non-possession per La. R.S. 44:34; dismissal appropriate because custodian cannot produce unidentified records
Sufficiency of coroner’s statutory response	Hatcher: coroner failed to comply and should be compelled	Rouse: letter explained non-possession and sought more info; complied with statute	Held: response met La. R.S. 44:34 requirements; mandamus would not aid given lack of identifiable records
Award of civil penalties under La. R.S. 44:85	Hatcher: seeks penalties for delay between request and response	Rouse: either timely or not arbitrary; in any event court has discretion	Held: no abuse of discretion in denying penalties given reasonable explanation and uncertainty about receipt date

Martin v. Bonanno, 421 So.2d 359 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (proper method to challenge unauthorized use of a summary proceeding)
Cent. Cmty. Sch. Bd. v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 991 So.2d 1102 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (relief sometimes inappropriate in mandamus; ordinary proceedings may be required)
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., LLC v. State ex rel. Coastal Prot. & Restoration Auth., 167 So.3d 682 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (mandamus may be asserted as a summary proceeding)
Aberta, Inc. v. Atkins, 89 So.3d 1161 (La.) (mandamus limited to compelling ministerial duties; extraordinary remedy)
Newman Marchive Partnership, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 979 So.2d 1262 (La.) (definition of ministerial duty for mandamus)
Bozeman v. Mack, 744 So.2d 34 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (coroner records are public records under Public Records Law)
Everett v. S. Transplant Serv., Inc., 709 So.2d 764 (La.) (coroner records treated as public records)
Hunter v. Pennington, 726 So.2d 1082 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (custodian’s written statement of non-possession can satisfy La. R.S. 44:34)
Reynolds v. Louisiana Highway Comm’n, 111 So. 622 (La.) (mandamus should not issue when it would not serve a useful purpose)