# Smith v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections Parole Board, State of Louisiana

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · October 29, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10767391

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** October 29, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10767391

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOHN ABDUL JAMAL SMITH CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-2282

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECTION: AB@(5)
CORRECTIONS PAROLE BOARD, WARDEN OF
LAFOURCHE PARISH CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

in forma pauperis pro se

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding was filed by plaintiff, John
Abdul Jamal Smith, a prisoner currently housed at the Franklin Parish Detention Center. In
September 2024, he filed the instant lawsuit against defendants, the “Department of Public
Safety and Corrections (DPSC) Parole Board” and the Warden of Lafourche Parish
Correctional Complex. (Rec. doc. 1). In his complaint, Smith alleges that he was wrongly
removed from the parole docket for a scheduled parole hearing that was scheduled to take
place on April 23, 2024. He disputes the grounds for the notice of removal, a disciplinary
report from Lafourche Parish Correctional Complex on July 18, 2023, because he had no
1
prior knowledge or notice of such action. (Rec. doc. 1-1, p. 1). Smith alleges that he should
not have been removed from the parole docket for a disciplinary action that he had no
knowledge of and which he now questions. After his parole hearing was canceled, he wrote
a letter to the Warden of Lafourche Parish Correctional Complex inquiring about the
1
Smith’s attempts to appeal the decision removing him from the parole docket and to obtain a new
parole hearing were unsuccessful. Rec. doc. 1-1, pp. 9-10, 15. His disciplinary board appeal (DWCC-2024-073)
was rejected due to lack of information as per the disciplinary database. Rec. doc. 1-1 at 11, 16. The disciplinary
ruling also advised that the decision of the parole board is not appealable through the disciplinary process.
2
disciplinary matter. He complains that the Warden did not respond to the letter. He
requests monetary compensation for defamation, cruel and unusual punishment, mental and
emotional distress, and pain and suffering, and seeks immediate release via emergency
3
parole hearing. (Rec. doc. 1, Coimn pfloarimnta a tp papu.p 4e-r6is).
A proceeding brought may be dismissed as frivolouBso ouknedre vr.
§K1o9o1n5ce(e)(2)(B)(i) if the claim alleged therein has no arguable basis in law or fact,
, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993), or if siete f aaillsso to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 28 U.S.C. §1915A, 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c).
Liberally construing the complaint, it is the recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate
Judge that this matter be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failing to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
4
First, the defendant “DPSC Parole Board,” (Committee on Parole) is not considered
a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Committee on Parole is a sub-unit of
the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, which is an independent
2
Rec. Doc. 1-1, p. 8. In his letter, dated May 11, 2024, he acknowledges he was told that he was under
investigation at Lafourche Parish Correctional Complex, but then he was shipped back to Catahoula Parish and
received no other information about it.
3
Smith seeks “to be released immediately on emergency parole hearing.” He alleges that he “would
have been granted parole hbaebceaauss ec ohrips ucshances were very high due to being in the step program with completed
rehabilitation classes and certifications.” (Rec. doSec.e 1 W aitl kpi.n 6so).n Tvh. De oCtosounrt notes that his claims maseye b ael sbor oLuagy hvt.
uMnydeersr § 1983 rather than because success on the claims raised would result only in a new parole
hearing, not an immediate release from prison. , 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005);
, Civ. Action No. 22-2157, 2022 WL 17476961, at *4 (E.D. La. 12/6/22). See
4 see also Gonzales v. State
The Committee on Parole replaced the Board of Parole, which was abolished. La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 15:574.2(E); , 11S7e Seo.3d 514, 515 n. 1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2013) (“Effective August 1,
2012, the Board of Pardons functioning as the committee onS peearole became the successor to, and assumed
control of, the affairs of the Board of Parole. La. Acts 2012, No. 714, § 4.”). The Committee on Parole is part
of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36:409(C)(4).
State v. Broom
executive branch agency of the state government. La. Rev. Stat. §15:574.2; ,
439 So.2d 357, 367 (La. 19W8h3i)t.l eAyn v e. xLeecBulatinvce agency and its sub-units are not persons subject
to liability under §1983. adopted , Civ. Action No. 18-738, 2019 WL 7598839, at *2
& n. 11 (M.D. La. Oct. 3, 2019), , 2019 WL 5959563 (M.D. La. Nov. 13, 2019).
Further, even if the State was considered a proper defendant, which it is not, the State
of Louisiana is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. Unless a
state has waived its immunity, the Eleventh Amendment bars the state’s citizens fromC foilzinzog

svu. iTt aanggaiipnasth tohae Pstaarties hin C foedunercaill- Pcoreusritd feonrt e Gitohveerr mnmonenettary damages or injunctive relief.
, 279 F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 2002).
Generally, the State of Louisiana has not waived its immunity or consented to the eCxoezrzcoise of
federal judicDiaell aphoowuesrs ainye c viv. iCl iatyc toiof nNse wag Iabienrsita it. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:5106(A); , 279
F.3d at 281; , 937 F.2d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 1991). This shiSeelde
Mofc iGmrmewu nvi. tTye wxaosu Bldo aerxdte onfd P taor dthoen sC &om Pmariottleese on Parole as an arm or agency of the State.
, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly,
any claim asserted against the “DPSC Parole Board” would be barred by the Eleventh
5
Amendment.
Additionally, even if he could nami.ee. a proper defendant, Smith would not be able to
show that the parole procedure at issue ( , authorizing removal from the parole docket due
to recent disciplinary conduct), created a liberty interest in a parole hearing protected by the
5 See K.P .v. LeBlanc
Eleventh Amendment immunity is applicable to § 1983 claims against the State of Louisiana – and by
extension, to official-capacity claims against a Louisiana state officer. , 627 F.3d 115, 124 (5th
Cir. 2010) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits by private citizens against a state in federal court. The bar
applies not only to the state itSseeelf,e b.gu.t Galrseoe np rvo. tMecatnss sotuarte actors in their official capacities.” (citations omitted)).
The Eleventh Amendment does not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction over an official-capacity claim seeking
prospective injunctive relief. , , , 474 U.S. 64, 68 (1985).
See Stevenson v. Louisiana Board of Parole
Due Process Clause. Sinclair v. Ward , 265 F.3d 1060, 20s0ee1 aWlsLo
8D7e2N8o8m7e, sa vt .* L1e (B5ltahn cCir. 2001) (citing , 205 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1999));
, Civ. Action No. 22-141, 2022 WL 17479134, at *2 & n. 13 (M.D. La. Nov.
1, 2022)a d(nopot ecdonstitutional or federal law entitles plaintiff tRoo ba inhseoanr ivn. gV ibtetoforiroe the parole
board), , 2022 WL 17475770 (M.D. La. Dec. 6, 2022); , Civ. Action
No. 17-1636, 2020 WL 523268, at *3 (M.D. La. Jan. 16, 2020) (“[B]ecause Plaintiff did not
have a protected liberty interest in parole, he aadlospot ecdannot complain regarding the

constitutionality of the denial of a parole hearing.”), , 2020 WL 515865 (M.D. La. Jan.
31, 2020). In the absence of such a liberty interest, a due process challenge to the Committee
on Parole’s procedures, specifically, the purported improper denial of a parole hearing based
on incorrect information, fails. Nor does this Court act as an appellate courtS teoe ree.vgi.ewCo elermroarns
mv. aDdiere bcyto srtaTteD tCrJi-bCuInDals that do not affect an inmate's constitutional rights. , ,
, , Civ. Action No. 08-159, 2009 WL 56947, *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2009)
(noting, in the context of an inmate's habeas corpus proceeding arising out of a prison
disciplinary proceeding, that “[i]n the course of reviewing state proceedings, a federal court

does not sit as a super state appellate court.”).
Second, as to the Warden of Lafourche Parish Correctional Complex, Smith alleges
only that he wrote the Warden inquiring about the disciplinary report and that he failed to
respond. The Warden may be liable under § 1983 only if he was personally involved in the
acts causing a deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights or if a cauDsoaul tchoitn vn.e Jcotnioesn
exists between an act of the officials eaen da lason Wallaetgseodn cvo. Innstteitrusttaioten aFli rveio &la Ctiaosnu.a lty Co. ,
641 F.2d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1981); , 611 F.2d
120 (5th Crire.s p1o9n8d0e)a. t Asunp oefrfiiocrial cannot be held responsible pursuant to § 1983 under any
theory of or simply beSceaeu sAel toann ve. mTepxlo. Aye&eM o Ur nsiuv.bordinate allegedly
violated the plasinetei fafl'sso coOnlisvteitru vt.i oScnoatlt rights. , 168 F.3d 196, 200
(5th Cir. 1999); , , 276 F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Section 1983 does
not create supervisory or respondeat superior liability.”). As a supervisory official, the
Warden may be held liable for his subordinates’ acCtioolnles vo. nBlrya zifo sh Ce nitmy.p, Tleemx.ented a stated
unconstitutional policy that caused plaintiff’s injury. , 981 F.2d 237,

245 (5th Cir. 1993). Smith’s allegation against the Warden for failing to respond to his letter
does not state a cognizable claim under §1983 for deprivation of a federally protected
constitutional right or implementation of an unconstitutional policy. His claim against the
Warden should be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for which relief can
be granted.
Finally, if Smith is attempting to assert any state-law claimsS, etehe Court should decline
to consider them because he has asserted no valid federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)
(“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ...s iefe . ..a tlhsoe

dJaicsktrsiocnt cvo. uMritz zheals dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction ....”);
, 361 F. App'x 622, 627 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Because [the plaintiff] states not
one valid federal claim, the district court properly declined jurisdiction over his Louisiana
causes of action.”). If Smith wants to pursue claims under state law, he should do so in the
state courts. RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDED
For the foregoing reasons, it is that Smith’s complaint against the
Department of Public Safety andD ICSoMrrIeScStEioDn sW PIaTrHo lPe RBEoJaUrDd IaCnEd the Warden of Lafourche
Parish Correctional Complex be as legally frivolous and for
failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),
§1915A. To the extent he seeks to raise state-law claims, it is recommended that those claims
be dismissed without prejudice to his refiling in state court.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and

recommendation contained in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14
days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error,
from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, provided that the parDtoyu hgalsa sbse ve.n U sneirtveedd S wtaittehs nAouttioce. Athssaotc s.uch
consequences will result from a failure to object. , 79
F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).6 29th October
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2024.

________
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Douglass
6
referenced the previously-applicable 10-day period for the filing of objections. Effective
December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) was amended to extend that period to 14 days.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10767391. Public record. Not legal advice.