Dunahue v. Dennis
2016 Ark. 285
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Reginald L. Dunahue, an Arkansas DOC inmate convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender, filed pro se habeas and mandamus petitions in Lincoln County and separately sought this Court’s intervention after the clerk allegedly failed to file his pleadings.
- Dunahue alleges a recurring practice in Lincoln County where inmate pleadings are not filed unless an initial partial filing fee (per Act 340) is paid; he claims he cannot afford the fee and thus his pleadings were not entered or were destroyed.
- Dunahue appended a March 8, 2016 order by Circuit Judge Jodi Raines Dennis finding him not indigent, setting a partial fee, and authorizing the clerk to destroy pleadings not paid for within 60 days; the order was not file-marked or docketed.
- The Lincoln County circuit clerk provided a note stating she waits four to six months before shredding documents to allow time for payment; prior disputes over filing practices in Lincoln County have arisen (see Halfacre v. Kelley).
- This Court is concerned about systemic procedures that may prevent timely appeals by inmates because filing and entry dates affect appeal deadlines, and inconsistent or incorrect file-marking could make review impossible.
- The Court treated Dunahue’s petition as a motion for rule on clerk, appointed a special master (Hon. John Mauzy Pittman) to investigate the county’s practices, the precise history and filing status in Dunahue’s case, and whether the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inmate pleadings were improperly not filed/destroyed by the clerk | Dunahue: clerk failed to file pleadings and may have destroyed them absent fee payment | Clerk/Judge: (no responsive pleading filed; later filings and amended order suggest filing occurred) | Court could not determine from uncertified record; appointed special master to investigate |
| Whether denial of indigent status requires file-marked order to allow appeal | Dunahue: lack of file-mark prevents effective order and appeal | County: reliance on Act 340 to require partial fee when inmate not indigent | Court: orders denying indigency must be filed/marked; otherwise no effective order for appeal; procedural entry required under Rule 58 and Admin Order No. 2 |
| Whether Lincoln County has a systemic practice preventing appeals by inmates | Dunahue: practice is recurring and systemwide | County: (implicit) procedures followed; previous filings exist | Court: sufficient concern to investigate systemwide practice; appointed special master; noted prior similar matters (Halfacre) |
| Whether the controversy is moot or capable of repetition yet evading review | Dunahue: relief still needed even if specific pleadings later filed | County: later filings and amended orders might moot petition | Court: even if moot, exception applies if practice likely to recur and evade review; investigation warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn v. Gallagher, 2015 Ark. 472 (2015) (court must file-mark and enter orders to create a proper record)
- Penn v. Gallagher, 2015 Ark. 354 (2015) (treatment of in forma pauperis proceedings and filing requirements)
- Halfacre v. Kelley, 2016 Ark. 71 (2016) (prior Court intervention ordering Lincoln County clerk to file inmate pleadings)
- White v. State, 373 Ark. 415 (2008) (a court may not implement procedures that prevent timely appeals)
- Terry v. White, 374 Ark. 387 (2008) (recognizes exception to mootness when an issue is capable of repetition yet evades review)