191 So. 3d 1149
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Abdullah Muhammad (aka Kirk Spencer) was convicted of first-degree murder (docket No. 1695); conviction became final in 1995.
- Muhammad's counsel requested the DA's file for docket 1695 in 2004 and again via certified letters in 2013; DA acknowledged providing one file in 2004 but later failed to produce the 1695 file or respond to 2013 requests.
- Muhammad filed a mandamus petition under the Louisiana Public Records Law in July 2014 seeking production of the 1695 file; the DA raised La. R.S. 44:31.1 (limiting access by certain incarcerated felons) and later asserted the records might have been destroyed per retention schedules.
- The trial court initially ordered production for in camera review; the DA did not produce the files but later raised res judicata based on Muhammad’s 2005 Motion to Compel (denied in the criminal case).
- Trial court granted the DA’s res judicata exception and found Muhammad barred under La. R.S. 44:31.1; Muhammad appealed. The appellate court vacated that judgment and remanded for further proceedings, including a full hearing on contempt/certification under La. R.S. 44:34.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the mandamus/public-records action | 2005 Motion to Compel was different (filed in criminal case against A.D.A. Marshall); new mandamus under Public Records Law is distinct | 2005 denial of Motion to Compel is a valid final judgment on same subject, so relitigation is barred | Res judicata does not apply: prior denial wasn’t a final merits decision on Public Records Law claims and causes differ |
| Whether Muhammad is excluded from Public Records Law by La. R.S. 44:31.1 | Requests were timely and mandamus available after DA’s nonresponse; entitled to de novo review | Muhammad is a convicted, incarcerated felon who exhausted appeals, so not a "person" entitled to records under 44:31.1 | DA failed to carry burden: no competent evidence of incarceration/exhaustion or inquiries showing request limited to post-conviction materials; court erred finding exclusion applied |
| Whether DA complied with statutory duty to certify absence/destruction of records (La. R.S. 44:34) | DA never produced the required written, detailed certification about absence/destruction; mandamus and contempt remedies appropriate | DA asserted files may have been destroyed per retention schedule and claimed diligent search but produced no certificate or evidence | DA failed to comply with 44:34; trial court erred in not requiring full compliance and a full evidentiary hearing on the certificate/destruction issue |
| Whether trial court appropriately handled Muhammad’s Rule for Contempt | Court should enforce its production order, hold DA in contempt, and order production or detailed destruction certification | Trial court acted within discretion by ordering a certificate first instead of immediate sanctions | It was within discretion to order a certificate initially, but error to decline to hold a full hearing afterward on the subsequent Rule for Contempt and certificate noncompliance; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Olsen, 113 So.3d 274 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (res judicata principles)
- Schneidau v. Vanderwall, 17 So.3d 61 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (four prerequisites for res judicata)
- Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933 (La. 1984) (public records right construed liberally)
- Vandenweghe v. Parish of Jefferson, 70 So.3d 51 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (custodian burden and de novo review in public records mandamus)
- Fussell v. Reed, 664 So.2d 1214 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (requirement for detailed certificate when records absent)