Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-28-2020
Case Style:
LESTER WILLIAMS Vs. IBERIA PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Case Number: CA -0019-0906
Judge: Phyllis M. Keaty
Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Need help finding a lawyer for representation for showing cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment in Louisiana?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
Description:
MoreLaw ReceptionistsVOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services
Call 918-582-6422 Today
Mr. Williams filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, stating that on June 5,
2019, he sent a letter to Defendant-Appellee, Iberia Parish District Attorney,
requesting that he be allowed to inspect and copy the records in that department’s
possession pertaining to his arrest and prosecution in State v. Williams, Docket No.
06-CR-651 in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court. When he received no response
from Defendant, he filed the instant petition for an order directing Defendant to
allow him to inspect and copy the requested public records at no cost or at an
itemized reduced rate.
The petition was denied following a hearing on September 23, 2019. Notice
of signing of judgment was mailed on October 4, 2019. Mr. Williams filed a Notice
of Appeal on October 3, 2019, which was granted by the trial court on October 18,
2019, with a January 3, 2020 return date. This court received the record of Mr.
Williams’ appeal and issued a rule to show cause on December 30, 2019, why the
appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable,
interlocutory ruling. A timely response was received from Mr. Williams on January
15, 2020, wherein he argues the merits of why he is entitled to make a request for
public records.
We find that the ruling at issue, the denial of a writ of mandamus, is a nonappealable, interlocutory ruling, as it involves a preliminary matter and does not
determine the merits of a case in whole or in part. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841;
2
La.Code. Civ.P. art. 2083(C). The proper vehicle for review of the denial of a
petition for a writ of mandamus is by supervisory writ.
Accordingly, we dismiss Mr. Williams’ appeal. However, since his notice of
appeal was filed within the time for seeking a supervisory writ, we hereby construe
the notice of appeal as a timely-filed notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ and
allow Mr. Williams to file a proper application for a supervisory writ, in compliance
with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4, no later than thirty days from the
date of this decision. Mr. Williams is not required to file an additional notice of
intent to seek supervisory review or obtain an order setting a return date.
Outcome: APPEAL DISMISSED. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IS PERMITTED
TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: