150 So. 3d 354
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Phillip Monroe (incarcerated) requested public records from NOPD Superintendent Roñal Serpas on July 11, 2011; he alleged no response and sought a writ of mandamus and civil penalties.
- After initial district-court inaction and appellate intervention, this Court vacated the denial and remanded for a peremptory writ, cost determination, and a contradictory hearing to assess whether Serpas acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
- The district court ordered Serpas to notify Monroe of copying costs and to personally appear; Monroe was limited to submitting briefs and his motion to appear was denied.
- At an ex parte rule-to-show-cause hearing (July 19, 2013), the district court granted NOPD’s peremptory exception of no cause of action, dismissed Monroe’s claims with prejudice, found Serpas did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
- The City Attorney mailed the requested reports to Monroe via certified mail on July 19, 2013; Monroe appealed raising five assignments of error (ex parte hearing, due process, costs, and withholding records).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court improperly held an ex parte rule-to-show-cause instead of the contradictory hearing ordered on remand | Monroe: court ignored remand instruction; denial prevented him from proving arbitrary/capricious conduct | Serpas: he never received Monroe’s request or service of writ; affidavit shows no request received | Court: no reversible error—court’s finding that Serpas did not act arbitrarily or capriciously stands |
| Whether denial of in-person attendance violated Monroe’s due process rights | Monroe: as requester he was entitled to present facts, evidence, testimony at contradictory hearing | Serpas: Monroe was allowed to submit briefs; prisoner-presence factors (Ballard) justify denial | Court: no due process violation; permitting briefs was adequate given incarceration-related factors |
| Whether Monroe (prevailing party) should recover litigation costs and sanctions | Monroe: prevailing requester entitled to costs under La. R.S. 44:35 | Serpas: he acted in good faith, produced records when notified; costs discretionary and awarded only if custodian acted arbitrarily | Court: Monroe not entitled to costs—Serpas did not arbitrarily withhold and produced records free of charge |
| Whether public records were arbitrarily and capriciously withheld | Monroe: he still had not received documents; withholding was arbitrary | Serpas: records were not received earlier; once ordered, records were mailed and received by prison staff | Court: no arbitrary withholding; certified-mail evidence showed compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 874 So.2d 90 (La. 2004) (standard for manifest error review in civil cases)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (deference when two permissible views of evidence exist)
- Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou, 752 So.2d 815 (La. 2000) (manifest error standard applies to mixed questions of law and fact)
- Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1977) (factors for deciding necessity of an incarcerated plaintiff’s in-person presence)
- Dwyer v. Early, 842 So.2d 1124 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (discretionary awarding of attorneys’ fees and costs against record custodians only when conduct is arbitrary or capricious)
- Taylor v. Broom, 526 So.2d 1367 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (prisoners’ civil-trial presence may be denied for security reasons)
- Harold A. Asher, CPA, LLC v. Haik, 116 So.3d 720 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (restatement of two-part manifest-error inquiry)