In Re William Clay Caldwell, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: June 15, 2021
• Docket: 2020-CP-00402-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2020-CP-00402-COA

IN RE WILLIAM CLAY CALDWELL, JR. APPELLANT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/31/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. D. NEIL HARRIS SR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM CLAY CALDWELL JR. (PRO SE) NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER DISPOSITION: APPEAL DISMISSED - 06/15/2021 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McCARTY AND SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Balbina Caldwell initiated proceedings in the Jackson County Chancery Court to have

her husband William Caldwell Jr. (Caldwell) involuntarily committed for medical treatment.

Following a hearing, the chancellor entered an order on March 31, 2020, to admit Caldwell

to the Veterans Administration Medical Center (the VA) in Biloxi, Mississippi, for thirty to

ninety days for observation, diagnosis, and treatment. Fifteen days later on April 15, 2020,

the chancellor entered another order to discharge Caldwell. In appealing from the

chancellor’s order to involuntarily admit him to the VA, Caldwell filed a pro se brief in

which he alleged nineteen assignments of error.

¶2. As the appellant in this case, Caldwell bears “the burden of ensuring the record

contains all facts necessary to the determination of the matters appealed.” Jones v. Jones,

307 So. 3d 1229, 1230 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting G.R. v. Miss. Dep’t Human Servs.

(In re V.R.), 725 So. 2d 241, 245 (¶16) (Miss. 1998)). In designating the record for appeal, however, Caldwell requested that only four documents be included. Upon review, we find

Caldwell has provided an insufficient record for this Court to first determine whether his

appeal falls under an exception to the mootness doctrine—much less to evaluate any of his

claims. Because Caldwell was discharged from the VA and has failed to provide a complete

record for this Court to review all matters necessary to the appeal, we dismiss his appeal as

moot. Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of his assignments of error.

FACTS

¶3. On March 23, 2020, Balbina initiated civil-commitment proceedings against Caldwell.

Prior to Balbina’s initiation of the proceedings, Caldwell had voluntarily admitted himself

to the VA for three days. As Balbina explained in her petition, however, she remained

concerned for the safety of herself and the couple’s minor son as Caldwell’s discharge date

neared. Following a hearing on Balbina’s petition, the chancellor entered an order on March

31, 2020, to have Caldwell admitted to the VA for thirty to ninety days for observation,

diagnosis, and treatment. Caldwell was subsequently discharged from the VA, and aggrieved

by the chancellor’s order to involuntarily admit him, he appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶4. The appellate courts do not adjudicate questions that are moot. Davis v. Guido, 308

So. 3d 874, 882 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). “In general, we will dismiss an appeal ‘when

no useful purpose could be accomplished by entertaining it, when so far as concerns any

practical ends to be served the decision upon the legal questions involved would be merely

2 academic.’” Koestler v. Koestler, 976 So. 2d 372, 379 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting

Strong v. Bostick, 420 So. 2d 1356, 1359 (Miss. 1982)). Thus, “[a] case is deemed moot

where an actual controversy existed at trial but has expired at the time of review. . . . Further,

a case is moot where no practical benefit exists to the plaintiff or detriment to the defendant.”

Davis, 308 So. 3d at 882 (¶29) (citing Barrett v. City of Gulfport, 196 So. 3d 905, 910 (¶17)

(Miss. 2016)).

¶5. An exception to the mootness doctrine applies, however, “if the challenged action is

capable of repetition yet evading review.” Id. at (¶31) (quoting Barrett, 196 So. 3d at 912

(¶22)). We recently explained:

To meet this exception, a challenged action has to be (1) too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action. The court will also review a moot issue when the question concerns a matter of such a nature that it would be distinctly detrimental to the public interest that there should be a failure by the dismissal to declare and enforce a rule for future conduct.

Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶6. As previously discussed, this Court does not have adequate information before it to

determine whether an exception to the mootness doctrine applies to Caldwell’s appeal. In

designating the record for appeal, Caldwell requested the inclusion of only four documents:

the application for his commitment, an order of continuance, the order for his involuntary

commitment, and his notice of appeal. In addition to these four documents, the remainder

of the record consists only of the following: the docket filing sheets, Caldwell’s designation

3 of the record, a statement of fees from the chancery court, and certificates from the chancery

court clerk as to cost and authenticity. Caldwell designated no other documents from the

court below as part of the appellate record, and he included no transcript of the below

proceedings for our review.

¶7. Appellants bear the responsibility “to provide the record of the trial proceedings

wherein the error claimed is brought before this Court.” Jones, 307 So. 3d at 1230 (¶3)

(quoting In re V.R., 725 So. 2d at 245 (¶16)). Moreover, “if the appellant intends to urge on

appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the

evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such

finding or conclusion.” M.R.A.P. 10(b)(2). Even where no transcript is available, Rule 10(c)

provides a procedure for appellants to utilize. “Ultimately, ‘it is well settled that a reviewing

court cannot consider matters which do not appear in the record and must limit itself to the

facts that do appear in the record.’” Jones, 307 So. 3d at 1230 (¶4) (quoting In re V.R., 725

So. 2d at 245 (¶16)).

¶8. Based on the scant record before us, we cannot determine whether Caldwell’s appeal

falls within a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine. We therefore decline to address

the merits of his alleged errors and must dismiss his appeal as moot.

¶9. APPEAL DISMISSED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR.