Marler v. Petty
1995 WL 215957, 653 So.2d 1167 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff unknowingly files a suit in a court of improper venue, the court should transfer the action to a proper court in the interest of justice rather than dismiss it. An appellate court errs by ruling on other pending exceptions, such as failure to exhaust administrative remedies, before the case is transferred and those exceptions are ruled upon by a trial court of proper venue.
Facts:
- L. Steve Marler was an inmate at the Washington Correctional Institute in Washington Parish, Louisiana.
- On February 12, 1992, Marler was allegedly attacked and severely beaten with a broom handle by another inmate, Joseph Petty, in the prison's exercise yard.
- Marler alleges that prison officials were negligent in their response to the attack.
- Marler was subsequently transferred to two other correctional facilities within 34 days of the attack.
- On June 20, 1992, Marler filed a 'request for administrative remedy' with the prison concerning the assault.
- On June 23, 1992, the prison denied his request because it was not filed within the required 30-day period following the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- L. Steve Marler filed a tort suit against Joseph Petty and several prison officials in the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Washington Parish.
- The prison official defendants filed exceptions, including improper venue and abandonment for failure to timely pursue administrative remedies.
- The trial court found the venue was improper and dismissed the plaintiff's suit without prejudice, without ruling on the other exceptions.
- Marler, as appellant, appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of improper venue and affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that a transfer would be 'meaningless' due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Marler, as applicant, sought review from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which granted his writ application.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the lower courts err by dismissing the plaintiff's suit for being filed in an improper venue and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, instead of transferring the case to the court of proper venue?
Opinions:
Majority - Lindsay, J. Pro Tem.
Yes. The lower courts erred by dismissing the suit instead of transferring it to the proper venue. Under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, the exclusive venue for an inmate's tort claim against the Department of Corrections is the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, meaning Marler filed in an improper venue. However, Louisiana law provides that when a plaintiff does not knowingly file in the wrong venue, the case should be transferred to the proper court in the interest of justice, not dismissed. The court of appeal also erred by ruling on the issue of plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This exception had been filed but not ruled upon by the trial court, and it is the role of the trial court in the proper venue, not the appellate court, to rule on such exceptions first.
Dissenting - Calogero, C.J.
No. The lower court was a proper venue for the plaintiff's tort suit, and dismissal was inappropriate for different reasons. The dissent argues that the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure does not create an exclusive venue for an inmate's original tort suit, but rather establishes an exclusive appellate venue for judicial review of the administrative determination. The general venue rules for torts should apply, making Washington Parish a proper venue. The administrative remedy scheme is a preconditional requirement, not a replacement for the court's original jurisdiction. Therefore, the court should have addressed the substantive question of whether the plaintiff's failure to timely pursue administrative remedies barred his tort suit.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a key procedural principle in Louisiana law, favoring the transfer of cases over dismissal when a suit is filed in an improper venue out of an honest mistake. It clarifies the distinct roles of trial and appellate courts, establishing that an appellate court should not preemptively rule on undecided exceptions when a venue error is found. Instead, the case must first be sent to the correct trial court to address those issues. This holding protects litigants, particularly pro se ones, from having their cases dismissed on a technicality and ensures that substantive issues are first adjudicated in the proper forum.
