Background
De’Aundrey B. Clayton, an incarcerated litigant proceeding without counsel, applied for supervisory review of rulings by the 22nd Judicial District Court in Washington Parish. The appellate court noted that the clerk of court’s record showed that Clayton’s motion for appointment of new counsel had been denied on June 15, 2026.
Clayton sought review under district court case number 24-CR7-153927. The writ disposition indicates that his application concerned multiple motions, but it does not describe their substance beyond identifying the motion for new counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana First Circuit denied Clayton’s supervisory writ application. The court did not decide the merits of his challenges or explain that the underlying district court rulings were substantively correct.
The court clarified that, as an incarcerated pro se inmate, Clayton could seek review of the rulings without obtaining a writ return date. It permitted him to file a new application on or before November 2, 2026, provided that any new filing included the complete contents of the current application, the motions and rulings at issue, pertinent district court documents, and a copy of the appellate court’s ruling.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied the writ application without resolving the merits of Clayton’s claims.
- An incarcerated pro se inmate may seek review of the district court’s rulings without first obtaining a writ return date.
- Any renewed application had to be filed by November 2, 2026, and include the specified motions, rulings, record materials, prior application, and appellate ruling.
Why It Matters
The ruling provides practical filing guidance for incarcerated litigants seeking supervisory review in Louisiana’s First Circuit. It confirms that the absence of a writ return date does not bar an incarcerated pro se inmate from pursuing review.
At the same time, the disposition underscores the importance of supplying a complete record. Because the court did not adjudicate the underlying claims, the order should not be read as approving the denial of new counsel or the other challenged rulings.