Marty Boling v. Lona McCastlain, Chairwoman, Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board

2025 Ark. 78

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

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 78 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-24-326

Opinion Delivered: May 22, 2025 MARTY BOLING APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTEENTH DIVISION V. [NO. 60CV-24-2093]

LONA MCCASTLAIN, HONORABLE MACKIE M. PIERCE, CHAIRWOMAN, ARKANSAS POST- JUDGE PRISON TRANSFER BOARD APPELLEE APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Marty Boling appeals from the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis in

an action filed for declaratory judgment and mandamus relief. For reversal, Boling argues

that the circuit court erred in denying his in forma pauperis petition for failure to state a

colorable cause of action because he should prevail on the merits of his claim. We hold that

his appeal is moot and therefore dismiss it.

Boling alleged entitlement to declaratory relief with respect to parole eligibility and

asserted that his parole was denied for one year without legal authority. The circuit court

denied his petition to proceed as a pauper because Boling failed to state a colorable cause of

action pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 72 (2024). Boling alleged that appellee

Lona McCastlain, chairwoman of the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board, had acted ultra

vires on October 2, 2023, by denying him parole for one year. The record reflects that

Boling was denied parole due to “new time” and his “previous release history.” Because it has been over one year since Boling’s parole was denied, the central issue of this appeal—

the one-year denial of Boling’s parole—no longer stands. Therefore, the appeal has been

rendered moot.

It is settled that appellate courts of this state will not review issues that are moot. Ark.

Parole Bd. v. Proctor, 2021 Ark. 161 (citing Dickinson v. State, 372 Ark. 62, 270 S.W.3d 863

(2008)). A case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal

effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. Id. Here, Boling was denied parole for one

year in October 2023, and it has been over one year since his parole was denied. To review

issues that are moot would be to issue an advisory opinion, which this court will not do.

Siegel v. State, 2021 Ark. 228, 635 S.W.3d 313. However, this court has recognized two

exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Id. The first one involves issues that are capable of

repetition but that evade review, and the second one concerns issues that raise considerations

of substantial public interest that, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. Id. This court

considers whether to settle an issue that is moot, and we do not improvidently utilize either

exception. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Ledgerwood, 2019 Ark. 100, 571 S.W.3d 1 (citing

Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 28, 566 S.W.3d 105).

Boling’s case does not fall within either exception. Boling’s claim that the Post-Prison

Transfer Board acted outside its authority when it denied parole for a reason that was specific

to him is not a claim that is capable of repetition or that raises consideration of a matter of

substantial public interest. See Burnett v. State, 2023 Ark. 162, 677 S.W.3d 191 (holding that

claims of excessive bail are specific to the individual defendant and are therefore not subject

2 to repetition, nor are they matters of substantial public interest). Boling’s parole was denied

for a reason that was specific to Boling, the matter is now moot, and we dismiss his appeal.

Appeal dismissed as moot.

WOMACK, J., concurs.

BRONNI, J., dissents.

SHAWN A. WOMACK, Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority’s

disposition—the case should be dismissed. But because Boling’s underlying claim is barred

by sovereign immunity, the court should dismiss it for that reason, not because of mootness.1

Boling’s claims against Lona McCastlain, the chairman of the Arkansas Post-Prisoner

Transfer Board, impermissibly make the State a defendant in its own courts, and Boling

failed to plead any “express constitutional provision to the contrary[.]”2

Because of this, I respectfully concur.

NICHOLAS J. BRONNI, Justice, dissenting. This case presents a nearly identical

challenge to the one we denied in Robinson v. Felts, 2025 Ark. 67, a case we decided just

weeks ago. I’d follow that decision here and affirm the circuit court’s decision.

Marty Boling, pro se appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Samuel F. Pollock, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

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