Penn v. Gallagher
2017 Ark. 283
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Appellant Allen Lynn Penn, an Arkansas inmate, sought release of crime-scene evidence and confirmation of evidence possession from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (crime lab).
- The crime-lab Assistant Director (Gallagher) denied Penn’s records/evidence request in 2014.
- Penn filed a pro se petition in circuit court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) so he could pursue a writ of mandamus to obtain the evidence; the circuit court denied the IFP petition without elaboration.
- It was undisputed that Penn was indigent (no funds in his inmate-trust account); thus the denial must have rested on the alternate ground that his petition failed to allege a colorable cause of action.
- Whether mandamus could ultimately succeed depended on which version of Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-312 applied; Penn relied on Davis v. Deen interpreting the earlier statute, while appellees relied on later statutory text.
- The Supreme Court concluded Penn’s petition adequately alleged a colorable cause of action and that, given his indigency, the circuit court erred in denying leave to proceed IFP; the case was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court erred denying IFP without findings | Penn: indigent and petition alleges colorable mandamus claim | Appellees: petition fails to state a colorable cause; later statute limits relief | Court: denial was clearly erroneous; petition states a colorable claim and Penn is indigent — reverse and remand |
| Whether Penn alleged a colorable cause for mandamus | Penn: Davis v. Deen controls and supports access to evidence | Appellees: subsequent statutory amendments alter availability | Court: regardless of statutory-version debate, Penn’s allegations suffice to state a colorable claim needing development |
| Whether court needed to make findings on indigency | Penn: trial court must find indigency to deny on that ground | Appellees: (implicit) denial need not state specific findings | Court: Rule 72 requires findings if petitioner is not indigent; here court made no findings and indigency was undisputed |
| Standard of review for IFP denial | Penn: appellate review for abuse of discretion | Appellees: same standard | Court: applied abuse-of-discretion review and found clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Deen, 437 S.W.3d 694 (Ark. 2014) (interpretation of former § 12-12-312(a)(1)(B)(ii) relevant to access to crime-lab materials)
- Jordan v. State, 616 S.W.2d 480 (Ark. 1981) (standard: abuse of discretion for IFP determinations)
- Johnson v. State, 515 S.W.3d 116 (Ark. 2017) (trial-court factual findings supporting discretion reviewed for clear error)
- Watts v. Kelley, 520 S.W.3d 249 (Ark. 2017) (definition of a "colorable cause of action")