Bessent v. Clark, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01083-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-01083-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-25-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Freedom from incarceration - In forma pauperis - M.R.A.P. 6(a) - Post-conviction relief - Tort Claims Act - Section 11-53-17 - Section 11-46-9(1)(m) - Section 1983 claim - Sanction - Section 47-5-138(b)(i) Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: William H. Singletary Disposition: TRIAL COURT GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Case Number: 2002-1925 S/2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | QUENTIN BESSENT |
QUENTIN BESSENT (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | ERIC CLARK, ET AL. | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN L. CLAY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Freedom from incarceration - In forma pauperis - M.R.A.P. 6(a) - Post-conviction relief - Tort Claims Act - Section 11-53-17 - Section 11-46-9(1)(m) - Section 1983 claim - Sanction - Section 47-5-138(b)(i) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Quentin Bessent was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to twenty-five years. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Bessent then filed a “Bill of Complaint” in the Hinds County Chancery Court and sued Eric Clark and 4,999 unnamed individuals. He hinted at allegations of trespass, “special assumpsit,” breach of contract, and false imprisonment and alleged that the various State officials infringed upon his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The court dismissed the complaint, and Bessent appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | By way of his complaint, Bessent sought freedom from incarceration and damages of one million dollars from each of the five thousand defendants. To the extent that Bessent sought his freedom through a collateral attack on his conviction, his complaint must be viewed as an action under the Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act. To the extent that Bessent sought damages against state entities, officials, and employees, his complaint must be viewed as an action under the Tort Claims Act. The chancellor granted Bessent’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis. To the extent that Bessent’s complaint sought post-conviction collateral relief, there is no error in that decision. M.R.A.P. 6(a) provides for criminal appeals in forma pauperis. However, to the extent that Bessent’s complaint sought relief under the Tort Claims Act, Bessent presented no authority that would grant him the right to proceed with a civil appeal in forma pauperis. Section 11-53-17 authorizes in forma pauperis proceeding in civil cases at the trial level only. Thus, Bessent should not have been allowed to appeal his claims under the Tort Claims Act in forma pauperis. To the extent that Bessent’s complaint was a collateral attack on his criminal conviction, Bessent failed to obtain the requisite permission from the supreme court. As such, the chancery court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Bessent’s collateral attacks and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Bessent’s appeal. With regard to his claim under the Tort Claims Act, section 11-46-9(1)(m) provides immunity to government entities and employees from claims of incarcerated individuals. With regard to his Section 1983 claims, Bessent’s conviction has not been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Accordingly, Bessent cannot sue the various named governmental officials based on the constitutionality of his arrest pursuant to section 1983. There is a three-part test involved in determining whether a case brought in forma pauperis should be dismissed as frivolous: does the complaint have a realistic chance of success; does it present an arguably sound basis in fact and law; and can the complainant prove any set of facts that would warrant relief. Bessent’s complaint never had a realistic chance of success, it failed to present an arguably sound basis in fact or law, and Bessent could not prove any set of facts that would warrant relief. Thus, the Mississippi Department of Corrections shall apply the provisions of section 47-5-138(b)(i) regarding forfeiture of sixty days of Bessent’s earned time release, if he has any. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
