278 So.3d 1061
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- The DeSoto Parish police jury reallocated two offices near the secure entrance of the 42nd Judicial District Court (used by court bailiffs) to the district attorney's office; Chief Judge Charles Adams contends this undermines courtroom security.
- The police jury cites parish courthouse-allocation statutes as authority; Chief Judge Adams invoked Uniform Rules for District Courts, Rule 5.2, and issued an "Order As to Courthouse Security" enjoining the reallocation and removal of bailiffs without his approval.
- No petition, pleadings, hearing, or evidence were filed in the district court challenging that order before it issued; the appellants sought to appeal and filed a motion for appeal which the trial judge denied.
- This court treated the subject order as an appealable injunction, granted mandamus to permit appeal, and remanded for perfection of the appeal; the record on appeal consists only of the subject order and briefs (no evidentiary record).
- Appellants argue the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction absent an action/proceeding and that the order denied due process (no notice/hearing). Chief Judge Adams contends the order is an administrative act under his Rule 5.2 authority and inherent judicial power, and that challengers should pursue declaratory relief to develop a record.
- The appellate court concluded the proper vehicle to challenge the administrative order is a plenary proceeding (e.g., declaratory-judgment action) so a record can be developed, and remanded for proceedings consistent with that view.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction absent any prior action or proceeding | No jurisdiction because courts may only act in "actions" and "proceedings"; issuance without a filed case was improper | The order was an administrative exercise of the chief judge's authority under Rule 5.2 and inherent judicial power, not a conventional civil proceeding | Court declined to adjudicate merits due to lack of record; said challengers should bring a declaratory action so evidence/fact-finding can occur and remanded |
| Whether the order could stand despite no notice/hearing (due process) | Order deprived appellants of notice, hearing, and due process; trial court usurped police jury's space-allocation power | Administrative security measures are authorized; procedural challenge should be raised in a proper action to permit development of a record | Court did not resolve due-process merits because no factual record or findings existed; directed parties to pursue appropriate proceedings on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbornone v. Early, 401 So.2d 953 (La. 1981) (recognizes limited inherent judicial/administrative power to reallocate courthouse space; LASC exercised administrative authority on rehearing)
- Singer, Hutner, Levine, Seemen & Stewart v. Louisiana State Bar, 378 So.2d 423 (La. 1979) (discusses the constitutional basis and limits of inherent judicial power)