Taylor v. Petrie
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-00073-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-00073-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-27-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Exhaustion of administrative remedies - Dismissal of petition - Right to appeal - M.R.A.P. 5 - Recusal of judge Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-15-2008 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. Ashely Hines Disposition: DISMISSED PETITION Case Number: 2008-0382-CI |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Charlie Taylor |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | David Petrie and Mississippi Department of Corrections | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JANE L. MAPP, JAMES M. NORRIS | ||
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: | Exhaustion of administrative remedies - Dismissal of petition - Right to appeal - M.R.A.P. 5 - Recusal of judge |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charlie Taylor, an inmate in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, filed a “Motion to Show Cause” alleging that the MDOC and David Petrie, an MDOC adjudicator, had denied several of his rights and that he had suffered cruel and unusual punishment while in the MDOC’s custody. The circuit court dismissed Taylor’s petition, finding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the MDOC. Taylor appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exhaustion of administrative remedies Taylor argues that he was prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies as to two sensitive issue grievances. However, it is apparent from the record that Taylor has not properly utilized the sensitive-issue procedures that are allowed by the MDOC. Taylor also argues that he timely submitted his third-step filing regarding his sexual-harassment claim but that the prison officials did not timely mail the documents. There is no case that has applied the prison-mailbox rule to internal MDOC administrative remedies. The postmark on Taylor’s third-step filing clearly shows that it was mailed untimely, and Taylor has presented no evidence to show that the MDOC officials interfered with his ability to timely mail his third-step document. Issue 2: Dismissal of petition Taylor argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. An inmate must exhaust all of his internal remedies with the MDOC before seeking judicial review of any complaint. Here, the record us shows that the circuit court was correct in concluding that Taylor has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. There is little to no evidence of even partial exhaustion regarding most of Taylor’s claims. Issue 3: Right to appeal The circuit court stayed proceedings in Taylor’s case for ninety days to allow Taylor time to exhaust his administrative remedies. Taylor thereafter attempted to appeal the circuit court’s ninety-day stay. His appeal in that matter was dismissed by the Mississippi Supreme for failure to fully pay the costs of the appeal. At that time, the ninety-day stay had expired. Taylor has presented no evidence showing that the dismissal of his appeal was error. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 5, Taylor was required to obtain the permission of the Clerk of the Mississippi Supreme Court in order to file an interlocutory appeal. No such permission was requested or granted. Issue 4: Recusal Taylor argues that the circuit judge erred when he declined to recuse from Taylor’s case. However, there is no evidence that the judge was biased or was otherwise unfit to preside over Taylor’s case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
