La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177 (2026)

Judicial review of administrative acts; exception

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NOTE: This provision of law was included in the Unconstitutional Statutes Biennial Report to the Legislature, dated March 14, 2016.

§1177. Judicial review of administrative acts; exception

            A. Any offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision, excluding decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages, by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or a contractor operating a private prison facility rendered pursuant to any administrative remedy procedures under this Part may, within thirty days after receipt of the decision, seek judicial review of the decision only in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court or, if the offender is in the physical custody of the sheriff, in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the sheriff is located, in the manner hereinafter provided:

            (1)(a) Proceedings for review may be instituted by filing a petition for review in the district court within thirty days after receipt of the notice of the final decision by the agency or, if a rehearing by the agency is had or ordered by the court, within thirty days after the decision thereon. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all defendants, as provided by law.

            (b) The only proper party defendant is the Department of Public Safety and Corrections when seeking judicial review of an administrative decision, excluding decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages, rendered pursuant to any administrative remedy procedures under this Part. For the purpose of this Section, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections means a correctional facility operated by the state of Louisiana or the Louisiana Correctional Facilities Corporation housing offenders sentenced to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

            (2) The filing of the petition does not itself stay enforcement of the agency decision. The agency may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay ex parte upon appropriate terms.

            (3) Within thirty days after service of the petition, or within further time allowed by the court, the agency shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings, the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs related thereto. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record.

            (4) The court may order that additional evidence be taken before the agency upon conditions determined by the court. However, discovery provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure pertaining to ordinary suits are inappropriate and not applicable in a suit for judicial review under this Part.

            (5) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The review shall be limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy request filed at the agency level. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, proof thereon may be taken in the court.

            (6)(a) A party or agency who desires oral argument shall make a timely request for oral argument, as hereinafter provided. The request shall include a brief statement of why oral argument should be had. The court, in its discretion, may hear oral argument.

            (b) A request for oral argument must be made by the plaintiff with the petition for review or by the agency or defendant with the transmission of the administrative record or answer to the reviewing court, unless an extension of time is granted by the court.

            (c) A request for oral argument on an exception or motion must be filed by the movant with the filing of the exception or motion, and by the non-movant with the filing of any timely opposition to the exception or motion.

            (7) In the event that no oral argument is ordered, the court shall allow the parties, including the agency, a reasonable time for filing a brief or memorandum concerning the issues before the court.

            (8) The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings, or order that additional evidence be taken.

            (9) The court may reverse or modify the decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

            (a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

            (b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency.

            (c) Made upon unlawful procedure.

            (d) Affected by other error of law.

            (e) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

            (f) Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by firsthand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.

            (10) An aggrieved party may appeal a final judgment of the district court to the appropriate court of appeal.

            B.(1) If an offender who files a complaint or grievance which is the subject of an application for judicial review is not in the physical custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, or of a contractor operating a private prison facility, or of a sheriff when the decision is rendered with respect to the application for judicial review, the person against whom the complaint or grievance was filed may deliver that decision to the person who filed the complaint or grievance by mailing the decision by first class United States mail to the person who filed the complaint or grievance, at the most recent address provided by that person.

            (2) If the decision is mailed to that person and cannot be delivered by the United States Postal Service, the envelope in which the decision was mailed, together with the notations made on that envelope by the United States Postal Service concerning the inability to deliver that envelope, may be introduced into evidence for the purpose of showing compliance with the provisions of this Subsection.

            (3) If the judge finds that the person against whom the complaint or grievance was filed has used due diligence in mailing the decision, the court may determine that that person has complied with the provisions of this Subsection and has complied with the requirements of due process concerning notice of that decision.

            C. This Section shall not apply to delictual actions for injury or damages, however styled or captioned. Delictual actions for injury or damages shall be filed separately as original civil actions. This Section shall not apply to the commitment and transfer of children under R.S. 15:901.

            D. This Section shall provide the exclusive procedure and standard for review for all offenders as defined seeking review under this Part.

            Acts 1987, No. 94, §1; Acts 1988, No. 212, §1; Acts 1993, No. 871, §§1, 3; Acts 1997, No. 575, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1216, §1; Acts 2002, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 89, §2, eff. April 18, 2002; Acts 2010, No. 135, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 165 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Paul Massey v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 149 So. 3d 780 (La. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paul Massey v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 149 So. 3d 780 (La. 2014). · cites it 23× “Having exhausted the administrative process with the Department of Public Safety and Corrections affirming its amended computation of his sentence at each stage, Massey filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court according to La. Rev. Stat. §…”
Victorian v. Stalder, 770 So. 2d 382 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 22× “Inmates aggrieved by a decision rendered by the DPSC may seek judicial review pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:1177. The standard of review is set forth in LSA-R.”
Williams v. La. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 257 So. 3d 690 (La. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “R.S. 15:1177. On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court.”
Lightfoot v. Stalder, 808 So. 2d 710 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “R.S. 15:1177, was amended to remove the reference to the APA.”
Edwards v. Bunch, 985 So. 2d 149 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “R.S. 15:1177. On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court.”
Madison v. Ward, 825 So. 2d 1245 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “R.S. 15:1177 provided for many years that an offender aggrieved by the outcome of a CARP proceeding could petition the district court for judicial review of that proceeding "in the manner provided by R.”
Shannon v. Vannoy, 251 So. 3d 442 (La. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" As a result, traditional tort actions are not subject to the more limited judicial review available in district court for administrative decisions.”
Owens v. Stalder, 965 So. 2d 886 (La. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “On review of the district court's judgment under LSA-R.S. 15:1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions…”
Carter v. Lynn, 637 So. 2d 690 (La. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7× “R.S. 15:1177 for judicial review of an adverse decision by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections is peremptive or prescriptive.”
Harper v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 166 So. 3d 1078 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “R.S. 15:1177. Despite the traversal, the district court issued a judgment on June 19, 2014, in accordance with the commissioner’s recommendation, dismissing Mr.”
Cheron v. LCS Corr. Servs., Inc., 891 So. 2d 1250 (La. 2005). · cites it 3× “15:1184, [4] that it only addressed the constitutionality of the deferential standard of judicial review contained in LSA-R.S. 15:1177. [5] The Department contends that the exhaustion requirement for prisoner tort suits contained in LSA-R.”
Marler v. Petty, 653 So. 2d 1167 (La. 1995). · cites it 4× “LSA-R.S. 15:1177 provides that any offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections may, within 30 days after receipt of the decision, seek judicial review of the decision.”
Show all 165 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(0): 1 case
Budwine v. Marks, 139 So. 3d 547 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A): 40 cases
Victorian v. Stalder, 770 So. 2d 382 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “Inmates aggrieved by a decision rendered by the DPSC may seek judicial review pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:1177. The standard of review is set forth in LSA-R.”
Marler v. Petty, 653 So. 2d 1167 (La. 1995). “LSA-R.S. 15:1177 provides that any offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections may, within 30 days after receipt of the decision, seek judicial review of the decision.”
Bourque v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 218 So. 3d 1041 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
Wood v. Martin, 862 So. 2d 1057 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
Tatum v. Lynn, 637 So. 2d 796 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(1): 1 case
Victorian v. Stalder, 770 So. 2d 382 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “Inmates aggrieved by a decision rendered by the DPSC may seek judicial review pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:1177. The standard of review is set forth in LSA-R.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(1)(a): 1 case
Wood v. Martin, 862 So. 2d 1057 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(1)(b): 1 case
Hampton v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 213 So. 3d 394 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(10): 7 cases
Paul Massey v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 149 So. 3d 780 (La. 2014). “Having exhausted the administrative process with the Department of Public Safety and Corrections affirming its amended computation of his sentence at each stage, Massey filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court according to La. Rev. Stat. §…”
Madison v. Ward, 825 So. 2d 1245 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 15:1177 provided for many years that an offender aggrieved by the outcome of a CARP proceeding could petition the district court for judicial review of that proceeding "in the manner provided by R.”
Martinez v. Tanner, 79 So. 3d 1082 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Boudreaux v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 222 So. 3d 63 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
Curry v. Cain, 944 So. 2d 635 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(4): 4 cases
Curry v. Cain, 944 So. 2d 635 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
McDowell v. Taylor, 762 So. 2d 1149 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Jackson III v. Leblanc, 30 So. 3d 283 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Millsap v. Cain, 24 So. 3d 1030 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(5): 31 cases
Paul Massey v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 149 So. 3d 780 (La. 2014). “Having exhausted the administrative process with the Department of Public Safety and Corrections affirming its amended computation of his sentence at each stage, Massey filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court according to La. Rev. Stat. §…”
Lightfoot v. Stalder, 808 So. 2d 710 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 15:1177, was amended to remove the reference to the APA.”
McCoy v. Stalder, 770 So. 2d 447 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Robinson v. Stalder, 734 So. 2d 810 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Williams v. La. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 257 So. 3d 690 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 15:1177. On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(6)(a): 1 case
Onezime v. La. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 243 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(8): 14 cases
Edwards v. Bunch, 985 So. 2d 149 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 15:1177. On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court.”
Harper v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 166 So. 3d 1078 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “R.S. 15:1177. Despite the traversal, the district court issued a judgment on June 19, 2014, in accordance with the commissioner’s recommendation, dismissing Mr.”
Williams v. La. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 257 So. 3d 690 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 15:1177. On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court.”
Owens v. Stalder, 965 So. 2d 886 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “On review of the district court's judgment under LSA-R.S. 15:1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions…”
Williams v. Creed, 978 So. 2d 419 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(9): 48 cases
Paul Massey v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 149 So. 3d 780 (La. 2014). “Having exhausted the administrative process with the Department of Public Safety and Corrections affirming its amended computation of his sentence at each stage, Massey filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court according to La. Rev. Stat. §…”
Williams v. La. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 257 So. 3d 690 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 15:1177. On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court.”
Lightfoot v. Stalder, 808 So. 2d 710 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 15:1177, was amended to remove the reference to the APA.”
Edwards v. Bunch, 985 So. 2d 149 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 15:1177. On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court.”
McCoy v. Stalder, 770 So. 2d 447 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(9)(a): 4 cases
Paul Massey v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 149 So. 3d 780 (La. 2014). “Having exhausted the administrative process with the Department of Public Safety and Corrections affirming its amended computation of his sentence at each stage, Massey filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court according to La. Rev. Stat. §…”
Robinson v. Stalder, 734 So. 2d 810 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Singleton v. Wilkinson, 959 So. 2d 969 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
Williams v. Stalder, 992 So. 2d 592 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(9)(e): 2 cases
Lee v. La. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 240 So. 3d 244 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
Estrade v. Stalder, 961 So. 2d 492 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(9)(f): 1 case
Johnson v. Dep't of Corr., 738 So. 2d 1165 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(l)(a): 2 cases
Harper v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 166 So. 3d 1078 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “R.S. 15:1177. Despite the traversal, the district court issued a judgment on June 19, 2014, in accordance with the commissioner’s recommendation, dismissing Mr.”
Bridges v. Bullock, 124 So. 3d 1171 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(A)(l)(b): 2 cases
Queen v. Nugent, 74 So. 3d 829 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Queen v. Nugent, 58 So. 3d 1045 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(B): 3 cases
Marler v. Petty, 653 So. 2d 1167 (La. 1995). “LSA-R.S. 15:1177 provides that any offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections may, within 30 days after receipt of the decision, seek judicial review of the decision.”
Washington v. Sec'y, Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 704 So. 2d 349 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
Stokes v. Strain, 768 So. 2d 619 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(C): 12 cases
Shannon v. Vannoy, 251 So. 3d 442 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “" As a result, traditional tort actions are not subject to the more limited judicial review available in district court for administrative decisions.”
Dickens v. Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Women, 77 So. 3d 70 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Wood v. Martin, 862 So. 2d 1057 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
Allen v. State, Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 107 So. 3d 106 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Walker v. APPURAO, 29 So. 3d 575 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1177(D): 1 case
Victorian v. Stalder, 770 So. 2d 382 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “Inmates aggrieved by a decision rendered by the DPSC may seek judicial review pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:1177. The standard of review is set forth in LSA-R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.