Aldridge, et al. v. West, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00960-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-18-2006 Opinion Author: GRAVES, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Writ of mandamus - Jurisdiction - Section 21-31-23 - Standing - Section 11-51-75 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Dissenting Author : EASLEY, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-09-2005 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: Circuit Court granted a motion to dismiss in favor of the appellees. Case Number: 04-KV-0271-J |
|
| Note: | Nature of the Case: Hiring Decisions by Board of Alderman | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | COURTNEY ALDRIDGE AND KEVIN COLBERT,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF
NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI |
WALTER KEVIN COLBERT |
||
| Appellee: | PHILLIP C. WEST, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI; JOYCE T. ARCENEAUX; JAMES E. GRAY, JR.; ROBERT E. POLLARD, THEODORE J. WEST, DAVID M. MASSEY; AND JOHN W. MIDDLETON, JR., IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS ALDERWOMAN AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPP | L. CLARK HICKS, JR. |
|
|
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: | Writ of mandamus - Jurisdiction - Section 21-31-23 - Standing - Section 11-51-75 |
| Summary of the Facts: | At a city board meeting, Natchez alderman Theodore West made a motion to rehire Willie Jones as a patrolman with the city’s police department. Some aldermen questioned the propriety of the action because it circumvented the Civil Service Commission’s authority to make such employment decisions. The city’s attorney even stated that the Board of Alderman did not have the authority to employ, re-employ, or promote a police officer because such a decision must first be submitted to the CSC. Despite the advice of the city’s attorney, Jones was rehired by a 4-3 margin, with Mayor Phillip West casting the deciding vote. Courtney Aldridge and Kevin Colbert, as concerned citizens, filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus against the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of Natchez. Plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint. The Board filed motions to dismiss both the initial and amended complaints. The judge granted the motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Plaintiffs argue that the court erred in ruling it was without jurisdiction to hear their complaint and that the CSC had exclusive jurisdiction of the matter. The court relied on section 21-31-23 which provides the civil servant himself, not an outside party (such as plaintiffs), the right to seek an investigation into his removal, suspension, etc. Because plaintiffs are not civil servants under this statutory scheme and have not been discharged from such a position, they do not have standing to seek an investigation under this provision. Therefore, the trial court’s dismissal of the instant case was erroneous to the extent it was predicated on a finding that section 21-31-23 applied to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also argue the court erred when it failed to address the sole issue the Board had raised in its motions to dismiss. The Board, in its motions, had alleged the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ case because plaintiffs were subject to the requirements of section 11-51-75 and had failed to object to the rehiring of Jones within ten days of the Board’s decision. Plaintiffs argue that if the trial judge had found they were without standing to proceed under section 11-51-75, he would have been required to allow the plaintiffs to maintain their action for a writ of mandamus as the only appropriate remedy available to them. Though the plaintiffs do not have standing to obtain relief under section 11-51-75, their lack of standing under section 11-51-75 does not confer on them the right to pursue a mandamus action. In determining if a party is entitled to obtain a writ of mandamus, it must affirmatively appear that four essential elements are present: the petition must be brought by the officers or persons authorized to bring the suit; there must appear a clear right in petitioner to the relief sought; there must exist a legal duty on the part of the defendant to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and there must be an absence of another remedy at law. A private person may petition for a writ of mandamus if he can show an interest separate from or in excess of that of the general public. Because plaintiffs have previously taken the position that they have not suffered a separate or independent injury from the other citizens of Natchez, they do not have standing to pursue the instant mandamus action. Thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing their complaint. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
