Mangum v. Miss. Parole Bd. et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00822-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-29-2011 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Section 99-39-5(1)(a)-(j) - Racial discrimination - M.R.C.P. 4 - Service of process - Sufficiency of claim - M.R.C.P. 8(a) - Jurisdiction - Section 47-7-5(3) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Barnes, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-02-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 251-08-705 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Gerald Mangum |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Parole Board, Shannon Warnock, Bobbie Thomas, Clarence Brown and Betty Lou Jones | R. STEWART SMITH 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: | Post-conviction relief - Section 99-39-5(1)(a)-(j) - Racial discrimination - M.R.C.P. 4 - Service of process - Sufficiency of claim - M.R.C.P. 8(a) - Jurisdiction - Section 47-7-5(3) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gerald Mangum filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Mangum alleged that he was discriminated against by the Mississippi Parole Board because of his race. The circuit court denied his petition as a petition for post conviction relief. Mangum appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Post-conviction relief Mangum did not dispute his conviction, sentence, plea, or any of the other grounds under section 99-39-5(1)(a)-(j), the PCR statute. Rather, Mangum asserted a racial-discrimination claim. Therefore, the circuit court erred in treating Mangum’s petition as one for post-conviction relief. Further, Mangum never served process on any of the named defendants as required under M.R.C.P. 4. Rule 4(h) provides that if the defendants are not served with the summons and complaint within 120 days after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court’s own initiative with notice to such party or upon motion. Issue 2: Claim Mangum argues he asserted “non-conclusory claims which were fact-based.” To prevail on a racial-discrimination claim, Mangum must offer proof, either in his petition or in the record, that establishes that he suffered an equal-protection violation by the application of the statute based on a suspect classification. Further, proof of a racially discriminatory purpose is required in equal-protection-violation cases. Under M.R.C.P. 8(a), a plaintiff must set forth factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory. However, the pleadings need only provide sufficient notice to the defendant of the claims and grounds upon which relief which is sought. A pro se prisoner’s meritorious complaint may not be lost because it is inartfully drafted. Mangum raised the issue of discrimination in his first petition when he asked the circuit court to enter an order directing the Board “to show cause as to reasons why [Mangum] has been continuously and discriminatory [sic] denied [p]arole[.]” In his supplemental petition, Mangum went into much more detail on his racial-discrimination claim, citing a specific example of another similarly situated white inmate who was granted parole. Thus, Mangum stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Issue 3: Jurisdiction Section 47-7-5(3) provides that the parole board shall have exclusive responsibility for the granting of parole as provided by sections 47-7-3 and 47-7-17 and shall have the exclusive responsibility for revocation of the same. Further, there is no statutory right of appeal from the denial of parole. However, where constitutional issues are raised, a trial court asserts jurisdiction over those claims. Mangum’s allegations that he was denied parole based on race, if proven, would constitute denial of a cognizable federal right. Thus, although the circuit court had no jurisdiction to review whether the Board properly denied parole, the court did have jurisdiction to determine Mangum’s racial-discrimination claim if service of process had been accomplished. On remand, the circuit court shall either return the petition to Mangum, with a statement of the reason for its return, or dismiss the petition without prejudice so that Mangum, at his option, can refile his petition and serve each of the defendants with process. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
