L'Acquarius v. Hampton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

L'Acquarius v. Hampton

1982 OK 34, 642 P.2d 1143, 1982 Okla. LEXIS 220

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 9, 1982

DocketNo. 57739

StatusPublished

This text of 1982 OK 34 (L'Acquarius v. Hampton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

L'Acquarius v. Hampton, 1982 OK 34, 642 P.2d 1143, 1982 Okla. LEXIS 220 (Okla. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, inmate of the Department of Corrections, together with four other inmates, filed a singular pro se petition in the District Court of Osage County seeking ouster of various officials and employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections at the Hominy facility. Allegations were made by the inmates that the officials and employees should be removed from office because of alleged maladministration and alleged criminal conduct.

The instant original action requests this Court assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus requiring respondent District Judge to disqualify himself; requiring both the Attorney General and the District Attorney to prosecute the inmate’s pro se action, or alternatively, to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the ouster petition.

Proceedings to remove public officials and officers may be had only in the following manner: (1) Impeachment under the provisions of Art. VIII, § 1, Okla. Const., 51 O.S.1971, § 51 et seq.; (2) Accusation for removal from office presented by a grand jury pursuant to 22 O.S.1971, § 1181 et seq., (3) In case of a county or township officer, an accusation presented by the county commissioners, 22 O.S.1971, § 1194; and (4) Proceedings instituted by the Attorney General under the provisions, of 51 O.S.1971, § 91 et seq., at the direction of the Governor or upon notice in writing verified by five or more reputable citizens of the county. Inmates incarcerated in state penal institutions for convictions of felonies are not “reputable citizens of the county” within the meaning of 51 O.S.1971, § 94.

Aside from Art. VII-A, Okla.Const. and 51 O.S.1981, § 24.1, the above cited constitutional and statutory provisions are exclusive. The district court is without jurisdiction to entertain an ouster action on petition filed in the district court by private citizens. Alberty, et al. v. Parks, Dist. Judge, 128 Okl. 178, 261 P. 940 (1928).

Therefore, we refuse to assume original jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, inmate of the Department of Corrections, together with four other inmates, filed a singular pro se petition in the District Court of Osage County seeking ouster of various officials and employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections at the Hominy facility. Allegations were made by the inmates that the officials and employees should be removed from office because of alleged maladministration and alleged criminal conduct.

The instant original action requests this Court assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus requiring respondent District Judge to disqualify himself; requiring both the Attorney General and the District Attorney to prosecute the inmate’s pro se action, or alternatively, to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the ouster petition.

Proceedings to remove public officials and officers may be had only in the following manner: (1) Impeachment under the provisions of Art. VIII, § 1, Okla. Const., 51 O.S.1971, § 51 et seq.; (2) Accusation for removal from office presented by a grand jury pursuant to 22 O.S.1971, § 1181 et seq., (3) In case of a county or township officer, an accusation presented by the county commissioners, 22 O.S.1971, § 1194; and (4) Proceedings instituted by the Attorney General under the provisions, of 51 O.S.1971, § 91 et seq., at the direction of the Governor or upon notice in writing verified by five or more reputable citizens of the county. Inmates incarcerated in state penal institutions for convictions of felonies are not “reputable citizens of the county” within the meaning of 51 O.S.1971, § 94.

Aside from Art. VII-A, Okla.Const. and 51 O.S.1981, § 24.1, the above cited constitutional and statutory provisions are exclusive. The district court is without jurisdiction to entertain an ouster action on petition filed in the district court by private citizens. Alberty, et al. v. Parks, Dist. Judge, 128 Okl. 178, 261 P. 940 (1928).

Therefore, we refuse to assume original jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1982 OK 34, 642 P.2d 1143, 1982 Okla. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacquarius-v-hampton-okla-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack