2019 Ark. 283
Ark.2019Background
- Petitioner Charles Edward Jones, Sr. filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus alleging Judge Quincey Ross failed to timely act on a habeas petition filed May 30, 2017.
- The partial record submitted to the Supreme Court included a habeas petition file-marked December 13, 2017, and a motion for evidentiary hearing dated June 22, 2018.
- This court ordered Judge Ross to file an amended response clarifying whether the December 13, 2017 habeas petition had been acted on and to submit the May 30, 2017 filing.
- Judge Ross’s amended response attached the May 30, 2017 in forma pauperis filing (with a proposed habeas petition attached) and indicated a hearing had been set; a later second amended response included a June 12, 2019 order denying habeas relief after a June 10, 2019 hearing.
- It is unclear from the record whether the June 12, 2019 order disposed of the December 13, 2017 habeas petition; the Supreme Court therefore requested a further amended response from Judge Ross within ten days to clarify action on the December 13 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Ross failed to act timely on the May 30, 2017 habeas petition | Jones: no timely action; mandamus needed to compel ruling | Ross: court has acted — a June 12, 2019 order denying relief references the May 30 filing | Court: June 12 order addresses the May 30 petition; mandamus as to that petition is effectively moot |
| Whether the December 13, 2017 habeas petition has been acted on | Jones: December 13 petition remains unruled and merits mandamus | Ross: amended responses are unclear; hearing occurred but status of Dec. 13 petition not specified | Court: Clarification required; requested amended response within ten days to state whether Dec. 13 petition was acted on |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to control the circuit judge’s handling of habeas petitions | Jones: seeks writ to compel judge to act | Ross: mandamus cannot control discretionary judicial matters; only ministerial duties may be compelled | Court: Reinforces rule that mandamus is limited to ministerial duties and will not control discretionary rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Porch, 2018 Ark. 1 (mandamus enforces ministerial duties and will not lie to control judicial discretion)
- Griffin v. Alexander, 2017 Ark. 235 (court will not decide moot questions or render advisory opinions)
- Thornton v. Guynn, 2018 Ark. 211 (defines mootness as when judgment would have no practical legal effect)
- Gardner v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 212 (procedural context for habeas and in forma pauperis practice)