Perroni v. Sachar
2017 Ark. 59
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Samuel A. Perroni filed two complaints with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission (JDDC) against Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox alleging campaign misconduct, docket misrepresentations, an extramarital relationship with a former law clerk, and related failures to recuse.
- The JDDC investigation panels dismissed Perroni’s complaints; Perroni sued under the FOIA to learn panel members’ identities and prevailed in that FOIA action.
- Perroni then filed a declaratory-judgment and mandamus action in Pulaski County Circuit Court challenging: the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-404 and certain JDDC Rule 8 provisions; the vagueness of the JDDC’s “sufficient cause to proceed” standard; and seeking an order compelling the JDDC to investigate his complaints by the full nine-member Commission.
- The JDDC moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including lack of circuit-court subject-matter jurisdiction because judicial-discipline review is vested in the Arkansas Supreme Court, and lack of standing.
- The circuit court granted dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Perroni’s appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding review of JDDC actions lies exclusively with the Supreme Court under Amendment 66 and related statutes and rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Perroni’s suit | Perroni: circuit court may decide declaratory-judgment claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act and Ark. Const. amend. 80 §6(A) because he challenged statutes/rules, not a JDDC adjudication | JDDC: judicial-discipline matters and review of Commission decisions are committed exclusively to the Arkansas Supreme Court by Amendment 66 and implementing statutes/rules | Held: Circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; review lies exclusively with the Arkansas Supreme Court; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Perroni had standing to seek declaratory relief and mandamus | Perroni: as a complainant and citizen aggrieved by alleged unconstitutional procedures, he has a legal interest and injury sufficient for declaratory relief | JDDC: Perroni lacks a legally protectable interest to compel prosecution/investigation; private citizens lack a judicially cognizable interest in prosecution/nonprosecution | Held: Majority did not reach standing (dismissed for jurisdiction); concurring/dissenting opinions addressed standing and would have held Perroni lacked standing for declaratory relief |
| Whether Perroni’s claims were ripe / whether facts must be accepted as true | Perroni: pleadings should be taken as true and claims are justiciable as they challenge statutory and rule-based procedures | JDDC: challenges amount to an improper collateral attack on Commission action and are not for circuit court review | Held: Majority treated jurisdiction as dispositive and did not decide ripeness or factual sufficiency; concurring/dissenting opinions discussed ripeness and pleading rules differently |
| Whether mandamus / injunctive relief compelling JDDC to reinvestigate is available | Perroni: requested writ of mandamus and injunction to force investigation by full Commission as required by Amendment 66 | JDDC: such relief improperly seeks to command Commission actions that are subject to the Commission/Supreme Court framework | Held: Circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief; majority dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Cir. Ct. of Pulaski Cty., 303 S.W.3d 70 (Ark. 2009) (explaining subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 357 S.W.3d 445 (Ark. 2009) (court’s authority to hear particular types of cases must derive from constitution/statute)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. State ex rel. Faulkner Cty., 873 S.W.2d 805 (Ark. 1994) (determine jurisdiction from pleadings)
- Griffen v. Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm’n, 247 S.W.3d 816 (Ark. 2007) (judicial-discipline matters are sui generis and governed by Amendment 66 scheme)
- Brock v. Townsell, 309 S.W.3d 179 (Ark. 2009) (if circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, appellate court likewise lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal)
- J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State Bank, 836 S.W.2d 853 (Ark. 1992) (defining when a court is wholly incompetent to grant relief)
- McLane S., Inc. v. Ark. Tobacco Control Bd., 375 S.W.3d 628 (Ark. 2010) (standing and de novo review of legal questions)
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 465 (Ark. 2007) (standing requires a personal stake in outcome)