241 So. 3d 1231
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Relator Abdullah Muhammad (aka Kirk Spencer) is serving life for a 1992 first‑degree murder conviction and sought the District Attorney’s case file (23rd JDC No. 1695).
- Initial requests began in 2004 (payment and correspondence), and later counsel sent public‑records requests in 2013; the DA did not timely produce the file and the court ordered production for in‑camera review and later a certificate if the file was destroyed.
- The DA repeatedly failed to comply, raised res judicata and later claimed the file could not be located and had likely been transferred to the Louisiana Attorney General in 1996; relator filed rules for contempt and a mandamus petition under the Public Records Law.
- The district court sustained the DA’s res judicata exception (vacated on appeal), and on remand the DA filed a "Certification of Absent Record" and an exception of no right of action/no cause of action; the court sustained that exception and dismissed the mandamus petition.
- The Fifth Circuit appellate panel reversed the district court’s judgment sustaining the exception of no right of action as moot (because the DA had already satisfied the mandamus writs by certifying absence), affirmed that relator had an opportunity to be heard, and declined to award fees because relator had not yet prevailed on entitlement to the records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant / right of action — whether relator sued the entity that has custody of the records | Muhammad: court erred in sustaining DA’s exception; he should be allowed to pursue mandamus against DA | Babin: DA had no custody of the requested file (transferred to AG and likely destroyed), so DA had no right of action against it | Reversed district court’s judgment sustaining DA’s exception as the exception was moot when filed; relator must direct future requests to AG because DA was recused in 1996 |
| Entitlement to records under La. R.S. 44:31.1 (Public Records Law) | Muhammad: DA failed to show relator isn’t a “person” entitled to records and failed to meet statutory burdens | DA: relator in custody after conviction and appellate remedies exhausted; retention policy may have resulted in destruction; DA lacked custody | Appeals court previously vacated denial of access and remanded; on this appeal DA’s certification of absence satisfied the prior mandamus writs, leaving entitlement unresolved and no practical relief granted to relator |
| Award of attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 44:35(D) | Muhammad: he prevailed on appeal and is therefore entitled to fees and costs | DA: relator has not prevailed on the substantive right to inspect/receive the record, so fees are premature | Court held fees were premature because relator has not yet established a right to the records; prior appellate opinion did not finally establish entitlement |
| Adequacy of contempt hearing / due process / opportunity to call witnesses | Muhammad: denied meaningful hearing and chance to call/question subpoenaed witnesses concerning destruction/transfer | DA: court provided opportunity to be heard; DA filed certification; subpoenas were issued but relator did not move to question witnesses at hearing | Court found relator received a meaningful opportunity to be heard; no due process violation; relator did not pursue questioning of subpoenaed witnesses, so contempt claim was properly adjudicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr., 714 So.2d 1244 (La. 1998) (due process requires notice and a meaningful hearing)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)
- Muhammad v. Office of the DA for St. James, 191 So.3d 1149 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2016) (prior appellate decision vacating res judicata ruling and remanding for further proceedings)