Larry Chapin Hesler, II v. Alcorn County Correctional Facility

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decided: April 29, 2021
• Docket: 2019-CT-01582-SCT
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2019-CT-01582-SCT

LARRY CHAPIN HESLER, II

v.

ALCORN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/16/2019 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. PAUL S. FUNDERBURK COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ALCORN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LARRY CHAPIN HESLER, II (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: WILLIAM HULL DAVIS, JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 04/29/2020 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

EN BANC.

KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Larry Chapin Hesler II, an inmate in the custody of the Mississippi Department of

Corrections (MDOC), filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Mississippi

Court of Appeals’ decision to remand his action to the circuit court for dismissal due to lack

of jurisdiction. We find the Court of Appeals majority erred, and we reverse the decisions

of the Court of Appeals and the Alcorn County Circuit Court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On November 6, 2018, Hesler received a Rule Violation Report (RVR) after his

alleged involvement in an altercation with another inmate. On November 12, 2018, Hesler filed a complaint through the MDOC’s Administrative Remedy Program (ARP). The warden

upheld the RVR, and Hesler received notice of the final decision on April 17, 2019.

¶3. Hesler then filed a petition for judicial review in the Alcorn County Circuit Court. The

circuit court found that Hesler had signed the ARP response form on April 17, 2019, but that

Hesler’s petition for judicial review had been not been filed until June 4, 2019. Therefore,

it held that Hesler’s petition was not timely filed pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 47-5-

807. Section 47-5-807 provides that “[a]ny offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision

rendered pursuant to any administrative review procedure under Sections 47-5-801 through

47-5-807 may, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the agency’s final decision, seek

judicial review of the decision.” Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-807 (Rev. 2015). Accordingly, the

circuit court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

¶4. Hesler appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which assigned the case to the

Court of Appeals, and argued that the circuit court erred by dismissing his petition as

untimely filed. Hesler v. Alcorn Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 2019-CP-01582-COA, 2020 WL

4436470, at *1 (Miss. Ct. App. July 28, 2020). The Court of Appeals found that “a pro se

pleading is considered ‘filed’ when mailed by the inmate and not when it is received by the

circuit clerk.” Id. at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Easley v. Roach, 879 So.

2d 1041, 1042 (Miss. 2004)). Because Hesler mailed his petition for judicial review on May

14, 2019, less than thirty days after he had received notice of the final decision, the Court of

Appeals found that his petition had been timely filed. Id. However, the Court of Appeals then

determined that Hesler had failed to provide “notice to the parties of his intent to seek

2 judicial review.” Id. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court lacked

personal jurisdiction, vacated the circuit court’s judgment, and remanded the case to the

circuit court for dismissal. Id.

¶5. This Court granted Hesler’s petition for writ of certiorari. Hesler argues that the Court

of Appeals erred by determining that the record failed to show evidence that Hesler had

provided notice to the parties of his intent to seek judicial review.

ANALYSIS

¶6. Service of process is not required when a prisoner files a petition for review of an

ARP decision in circuit court. Smith v. State, 293 So. 3d 238, 242 (Miss. 2020). Instead,

Hesler was required to provide notice of his intent to seek judicial review under Uniform

Civil Rule of Circuit and County Court 5.04. Rule 5.04 provides that a party must file a

written notice of appeal and that “[a] copy of that notice must be provided to all parties or

their attorneys of record and the lower court or lower authority whose order or judgment is

being appealed.” UCRCCC 5.04. The Court of Appeals found that “[t]here is nothing in the

record before this Court indicating that Hesler provided notice to the parties of his intent to

seek judicial review.” Hesler, 2020 WL 4436470, at *2. We disagree.

¶7. The opposing party in this case is the Alcorn County Correctional Facility. The record

contains a handwritten note signed by Hesler, dated May 1, 2019, and addressed to the clerk

of circuit court, that stated: “Dear Clerk, Please file the inclosed [sic] Petition for Judicial

Review and forward the Motion for Hearing to your Court Administrator. I also ask that you

issue a summons to the Defendants and return a filed copy to me at the address below.”

3 ¶8. Additionally, a document labeled “Certificate of Service” was attached to Hesler’s

petition for judicial review. The certificate of service showed that Hesler had

this day and date mailed, via United States Mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing and attached instruments to the following:

Alcorn County Circuit Clerk 600 E. Waldron St. #7 Corinth, MS 38834

Alcorn County Regional Correctional Facility 2839 S. Harper Rd. Corinth, MS 38834

The certificate of service was dated May 14, 2019.

¶9. Lastly, the record contains a document titled “Mississippi Department of Corrections

Mail Transaction History Legal Timeframe 05/01/2019 between 05/31/2019.” The document

lists Hesler’s name and shows that Hesler mailed a document titled “MOT JUD REVIEW”

to “ACRCF, CORINTH, MS” on May 14, 2019.

¶10. The Court of Appeals relied on Smith in determining that Hesler had failed to provide

notice. In that case, this Court stated that, “[a]fter Smith received his ‘Second Step

Response,’ there does not appear to be any other communication between Smith and the

MDOC before or after Smith filed his petition seeking judicial review. The certificate of

service attached to Smith’s petition lists only the Greene County Circuit Clerk.” Smith, 293

So. 3d at 242.

¶11. This case can be distinguished. Here, the certificate of service listed both the circuit

clerk and the Alcorn County Correctional Facility. Therefore, the record shows that Hesler

mailed a copy of his motion for judicial review to the defendant in this case, the Alcorn

4 County Correctional Facility. Although Hesler did not notice the MDOC or the attorney

general, this Court will take into account when a prisoner is proceeding pro se and grant

some degree of leniency. Goodin v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 772 So. 2d 1051, 1054 (Miss.

2000); see also Moore v. Ruth, 556 So. 2d 1059, 1061 (Miss. 1990) (“Indeed, where, as here,

a prisoner is proceeding pro se, we take that fact into account and, in our discretion, credit

not so well pleaded allegations . . . .”); McFadden v. State, 580 So. 2d 1210, 1214 (Miss.

1991) (“A pro se complaint is held ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted

by lawyers.’” (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 529, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed.

2d 652, 654 (1972))). Because Hesler made a good-faith effort of noticing the Alcorn County

Correctional Facility by mailing his motion for judicial review to the correctional facility, we

find that the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction

to hear Hesler’s appeal.

¶12. In addition, although the Alcorn County Correctional Facility stated in its brief before

the Court of Appeals that it had not received notice of Hesler’s petition for judicial review,

it did not argue that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, the

correctional facility noted that the MDOC’s mail-transaction history showed that the motion

for judicial review was mailed to the Alcorn County Correctional Facility but argued that it

had not been “formally served with process.” As stated above, Hesler was not required to

serve the correctional facility with process.

CONCLUSION

5 ¶13. Because Hesler made a good-faith effort of noticing the Alcorn County Correctional

Facility by mailing a copy of his motion for judicial review to it, we reverse the decisions of

the Court of Appeals and of the Alcorn County Circuit Court, and we remand this case for

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶14. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

RANDOLPH, C.J., KITCHENS, P.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.