Anthony Williamson v. Daniel Shue, Prosecuting Attorney, Sebastian County, Arkansas

2025 Ark. 76

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 76 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-24-437

Opinion Delivered: May 22, 2025 ANTHONY WILLIAMSON APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NO. 66FCV-24-456]

DANIEL SHUE, PROSECUTING HONORABLE GREG MAGNESS, ATTORNEY, SEBASTIAN COUNTY, JUDGE ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED.

KAREN R. BAKER, Chief Justice

Appellant Anthony Williamson appeals from the denial of his motion for

reconsideration of the circuit court’s order that dismissed Williamson’s pro se petition for

declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus. Williamson argued in his petition that the

Sebastian County prosecuting attorney should be compelled to produce evidence gathered

in the investigation conducted during Williamson’s criminal proceedings. Williamson

further alleged that he was entitled to the documents free of charge. The circuit court denied

the petition, explaining that Williamson was attempting to circumvent Arkansas Code

Annotated section 25-19-105(a)(1)(B)(1) of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA), codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 25-19-101 through -112 (Repl.

2024), which excludes incarcerated persons from accessing public records. Williamson filed

a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the circuit court in June 2024.

Williamson timely appealed the latter order. We affirm. In 2009, a jury found Williamson guilty of aggravated robbery and kidnapping, and

he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 360 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court

of Appeals affirmed. Williamson v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 595. Williamson subsequently filed

multiple petitions for postconviction relief that were denied. Williamson v. State, 2020 Ark.

319, 608 S.W.3d 149 (second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider

a petition for writ of error coram nobis denied); Williamson v. State, 2015 Ark. 373, 471

S.W.3d 633 (per curiam) (first pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to

consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis denied).

Declaratory relief may be granted if the petitioner establishes that (1) there is a

justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse;

(3) the party seeking relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved

in the controversy is ripe for judicial determination. Berger v. Bryant, 2020 Ark. 157, 598

S.W.3d 36. A controversy is justiciable when a claim of right is asserted against one who

has an interest in contesting it. Id. A legal interest in the controversy means that the party

seeking declaratory relief must have a legally protectable interest. Sims v. Payne, 2023 Ark.

187, 678 S.W.3d 766. If a petitioner has failed to establish a right to declaratory judgment,

there is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Id.

When a declaratory action is dismissed for failure to state a claim, the standard of

review is whether the circuit court abused its discretion. Schuldheisz v. Felts, 2024 Ark. 137,

696 S.W.3d 817. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court has acted improvidently,

thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Id. Likewise, the standard of review on a denial

of a writ of mandamus is whether the circuit court abused its discretion. Id.

2 Here, Williamson is not entitled to access records maintained by the prosecuting

attorney through an action for declaratory judgment because such access is expressly

prohibited by section 25-19-105(a)(B)(i) of the FOIA, which states in pertinent part that

access to inspect and copy public records shall be denied to a person who has been found

guilty of a felony and is incarcerated in a correctional facility.1 An inmate who is precluded

from accessing public records under the FOIA does not have a legally protectable right as a

basis for his petition for declaratory judgment, and there is no justiciable controversy. See

Berger, 2020 Ark. 157, 598 S.W.3d 36. Because there is no legally protectable interest

necessary to establish entitlement to declaratory relief, Williamson is not entitled to the

issuance of a writ of mandamus. Id. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying

the motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of Williamson’s petition for declaratory and

mandamus relief.

Affirmed.

WOMACK, J., concurs.

1 Williamson argues that Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure 17.1 and 19.2 create a legal right to his request for records. He is mistaken. It is well settled that the purpose of the discovery rules in criminal matters is to require the State to disclose its evidence to the defendant in time for the defendant to make beneficial use of the information during trial. Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222, 408 S.W.3d 55. Williamson has not provided authority for the proposition that criminal discovery rules are applicable to his demand for records in a civil proceeding.

3 SHAWN A. WOMACK, Justice, concurring. The circuit court was right to

dismiss Williamson’s petition for a declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus against

Daniel Shue, a state official. But the circuit court should have dismissed Williamson’s

lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars it.1 Williamson has not demonstrated that there

is “an express constitutional provision . . . contrary” to article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas

Constitution that would give the circuit court jurisdiction to consider his claims on the

merits.2

For this reason, I respectfully concur.

Anthony B. Williamson, pro se appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

1 Perry v. Payne, 2022 Ark. 112, at 5–6 (Womack, J., dissenting); Thurston v. League of Women Voters of Ark., 2022 Ark. 32, at 17, 639 S.W.3d 319, 327 (Womack, J., dissenting). 2 League of Women Voters of Ark., 2022 Ark. 32, at 17, 639 S.W.3d at 327 (Womack, J., dissenting).