Whatley v. Caskey, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-01378-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-26-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conditions of confinement - Issuance of summons - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - Good cause Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2010 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Lester F. Williamson Disposition: DISMISSED FOR FAILURE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND LACK OF JURISDICTION Case Number: 10-CV-045(W) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Whatley |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Dale Caskey, B. Grimes, Felix Harris and Joyce Graham | NO BRIEF FILED |
|
|
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: | Conditions of confinement - Issuance of summons - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - Good cause |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Whatley filed a complaint, which he entitled “Petition to Show Cause or an Writ of Habeas Corpus,” against Dale Caskey, B. Grimes, Felix Harris, and Joyce Graham. In his complaint, Whatley challenged the conditions of his confinement at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility and sought transfer to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman or to a Mississippi Department of Corrections facility in Greene County. The court entered an order dismissing Whatley’s action without prejudice after finding that no evidence existed in Whatley’s civil file showing that Whatley had provided a summons for any of the named defendants. The trial court entered an order granting Whatley leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal of the court’s order of dismissal. Whatley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | There is no evidence in the record that Whatley provided a summons for any of the named defendants as required by M.R.C.P. 4(h). Pursuant to Rule 4(h), the trial court was required to dismiss Whatley’s complaint unless he was able to show cause as to why service was not made upon the defendants within 120 days. Because Whatley violated the 120-day provision of Rule 4(h) and failed to show good cause for his failure to comply, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Whatley’s complaint without prejudice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
