Ashby v. State
2017 Ark. 233
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Clarence Ashby, pro se, filed to proceed in forma pauperis to seek writs of prohibition contesting a risk assessment under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).
- This Court previously remanded for a properly file‑marked supplemental record per Dunahue v. Dennis; the circuit court then lodged the corrected record.
- The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Ashby’s in forma pauperis petition; Ashby appealed that denial to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- Rule 72 requires the circuit court to find indigency and that the suit alleges a colorable cause of action; a colorable cause must present a legitimate claim under existing law or a reasonable extension of it.
- The Supreme Court found Ashby’s petition failed as a matter of law because he sought a writ of prohibition against the State (a state agency action under SORA) rather than an inferior tribunal and therefore presented no justiciable issue.
- The court affirmed the denial of in forma pauperis without remand for Rule 72 findings because the underlying petition could not state a colorable cause of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ashby may proceed in forma pauperis to pursue a writ of prohibition challenging a SORA risk assessment | Ashby argued the SOCNA incorrectly assessed his risk and sought prohibition to correct that assessment | State argued writ of prohibition cannot be used to challenge executive‑branch agency actions and Ashby named the State rather than an inferior tribunal | Denied: petition fails as a matter of law because writ of prohibition targets inferior courts/quasi‑judicial officers, not state agencies; no justiciable issue |
| Whether the circuit court erred by not making Rule 72 indigency findings before denying IFP status | Ashby implicitly contended procedural defects required remand | State and court noted Rule 72 requires findings but substantive failure of the claim made remand unnecessary | No remand: substantive legal defect (no colorable cause) obviated need for Rule 72 factfinding |
| Whether a writ of prohibition can correct a previously made administrative determination under SORA | Ashby sought to use prohibition to overturn agency assessment already completed | State argued prohibition cannot be used to correct nonjudicial administrative acts or orders already entered | Held: writ cannot be used to correct completed administrative determinations by executive‑branch actors |
| Whether naming the State (rather than an inferior tribunal) defeats a prohibition petition | Ashby named the State as respondent | State argued that failing to name a proper inferior tribunal means no necessary party and no justiciable issue | Held: naming the State was improper; petition fails for not naming a party subject to prohibition relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunahue v. Dennis, 2016 Ark. 285 (per curiam) (procedural requirement for properly file‑marked pleadings on remand)
- DeSoto Gathering Co., LLC v. Ramsey, 2016 Ark. 22 (writs of prohibition are narrow, extraordinary, and must be used with caution)
- T.J. ex rel. Johnson v. Hargrove, 362 Ark. 649 (failure to plead facts giving rise to legal remedy presents no justiciable issue)
- Robinson v. Merritt, 229 Ark. 204 (writ of prohibition appropriate only against persons exercising judicial or quasi‑judicial power)
- Burchette v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 374 Ark. 467 (SORA procedures govern risk‑assessment process)