328 So.3d 1272
Miss. Ct. App.2021Background
- Terrence Clark, an MDOC inmate, received an RVR alleging a positive THC urine test and was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing; administrative appeals were denied.
- First-step response was signed Sept. 16, 2019; Clark acknowledged receipt Sept. 19, 2019; statutory 30-day window to seek judicial review then ran.
- Clark mailed his petition within 30 days but initially omitted the filing fee; the clerk returned it; Clark later paid and the petition was stamped filed Nov. 15, 2019.
- Clark’s certificate of service listed only the circuit clerk and the district attorney (and later the clerk on appeal); it did not list MDOC or the attorney general.
- The circuit court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely; on appeal the court found Clark had sought review within 30 days but affirmed dismissal because MDOC/AG lacked notice; a dissent argued Hesler and due-process notice-to-cure rules should have prevented dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §47-5-807 | Clark: mailed petition within 30 days; Maze supports that a timely attempt suffices | Warden: petition not stamped filed until after 30 days; untimely | Court: Clark did "seek judicial review" within 30 days (Maze), so timeliness alone did not bar review |
| Service/notice to MDOC and AG | Clark: served clerk and DA; believed that sufficed | Warden/MDOC: MDOC and AG were not served; certificate omitted required parties | Court: Failure to notify MDOC/AG is jurisdictional (per Smith); lack of notice means circuit court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Due process / notice to cure deficiencies (MRAP 2) | Clark/Dissent: clerk never notified him of service deficiency; due process required notice and 14 days to cure | Majority: notice requirement to parties is jurisdictional, not a curable procedural defect; Rule 2(a) inapplicable | Held: Majority rejected the due-process cure argument; dissent maintained dismissal violated due process and Rule 2 precedent |
| Merits of disciplinary decision | Clark: administrative decision should be overturned (insufficient proof) | Warden: evidence supported disciplinary finding | Court: Majority affirmed dismissal on jurisdictional grounds but noted circuit court’s merits ruling was also correct (insufficient proof to overturn not shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Maze v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 854 So. 2d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (timely attempt to mail petition counts as seeking judicial review)
- Smith v. State, 293 So. 3d 238 (Miss. 2020) (failure to give required notice to MDOC/attorney general deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Hesler v. Alcorn Cnty. Corr. Facility, 315 So. 3d 1040 (Miss. 2021) (pro se inmate’s good-faith effort to notify correctional facility can suffice for notice)
- Fields v. City of Clarksdale, 27 So. 3d 464 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (clerk must notify of deficiencies and give 14 days to cure; dismissal without notice denies due process)
- Van Meter v. Alford, 774 So. 2d 430 (Miss. 2000) (dismissal without clerk’s deficiency notice violates due process)