*1 Filing the Petition’s Timeliness II. for relief is second claim Stephens’s ' that contention because on his
based 7,-2014, July was
GARN’s filed, Amend timely because
it' was petitions for state requires
ment 7 filed with acts “shall be initiated1
wide than four less
Secretary of State the election at before
1^months 5, upon.” Const. art. voted Ark. to be
§ 1, amended Ark. amend. 7. Const. dead avers that Amendment 7’s
Stephens backward, forward, than rather
line counts petitions such as GARN’s should July 3 to be considered
have been filed gen on the November placement held, how recently ballot. We
eral-election v. in our decision of Richardson
ever,
Martin, petitions, such deadline here, Ac July issue was
one at fails Stephens’s claim
cordingly, timeliness
too. conclude neither of Ste-
Because'we meritorious, deny his
phens’s claims is complaint seeking to re-
original-action from, No. 5 the ballot. Issue
move issue shall
mandate immediately.
Petition denied.
Jessie GALLAGHER, H.
Richard Custodian Records, Appellee
No. CV-15-816
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Opinion Delivered: *2 request
that he denied the because Hill is an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction citing to Arkan- 25-|¾19- sas Code Annotated section 2015).1 105(a)(1)(B)(i) (Supp. Following denial, sought Hill hearing a Gallagher’s^ before the circuit court and simultaneously petition filed a to proceed in pauper- forma is. initially The circuit court granted the on petition 2013, but later set 20, 2013, aside the finding order that Hill was for ineligible in forma pau- because, peris incarcerated, status while he previously brought had three frivolous civil appealed, actions. Hill this court remanded, reversed noting that one of by cases cited circuit court did not Hill, pro Jessie appellant. se Hill v. Hill party. include as a .Gen., Rutledge, Att’y by: Leslie Jona- curiam). Ark. (per WL 314148 Warren, Gen., Q. than Att’y ap- Ass’t for - remand, On the circuit court an entered pellee. reinstating order Hill’s as a status pauper, but Gallagher filed motion to revoke GOODSON, COURTNEY HUDSON pauper Hill’s status and dismiss the Justice Associate that, asserting in addition the two re- |, Appellant appeals Jessie Hill from the maining cases listed previous order County the Jefferson Circuit order, Hill had also filed three federal revoking Court his in pauperis forma sta- lawsuits that should be counted as strikes tus Arkansas Annotated under Code Annotated section 2005). section ar- 16-68-607 Hill (Repl. 15, 2015, 16-68-607. On July circuit gues (1) that the circuit court erred revoking pau- entered Hill’s considering federal cases as “strikes” un- per dismissing status case without statute; der the concluding he that prejudice. Hill timely notice not fall imminent-danger did within appeal proceed as pau- exception agree the statute. We per on which appeal, the circuit court does not apply statute to dismissals in granted. federal court and reverse and remand. On appeal, arguments. -Hill raises three sought First,
Before the circuit Hill he the circuit court contends ..considered, challenge a decision Richard improperly appellee, federal cases as Gallagher, H. custodian records strikes because those cases were not ac- Second, Laboratory, deny- Arkansas State Crime tions an Arkansas he court. .in request argues documents related the federal cases were because nature, criminal case under the habeas not count should Freedom. (FOIA). Information Act he Finally, stated strikes under the statute. as- 313, 437 curiam), previously 1. We that a (per have held Ark. S.W.3d 694 However, defendant has a all only this appeal access involves the revo Deen, pertaining to his pauperis case. Davis cation Hill’s forma status. code, limit expressly sections of the within the statuto- his case .falls serts that For to Arkansas courts. involving application imminent their for cases ry exception “This physical injury. provides, example, serious danger of of Prac- known as the ‘Code code shall be argues |¡¡For Hill point, his first in this state.” tice Civil Cases’ finding court erred in circuit that the *3 (em- 2005) (Repl. § 16-55-101 Code Ann. court in the district filed federal lawsuits added). Additionally, section phasis Code Arkansas' as “strikes” under counted “shall provides the code 55-103 provi That 16-68-607. Annotated section Uregulate in all civil actions procedure states, sion this in the courts proceedings and per- shall an incarcerated In no event 16-55-103(a) state.” judg- appeal action or bring a civil son added). applica- (emphasis Because the un- proceeding in a action or ment civil is to Arkansas tion of the code limited if indigency statutes the Arkansas der section 16-68-607 contained courts and on three incarcerated has code, we that the circuit hold within occasions, incarcer- prior or more while strikes cases counting court in as erred brought any facility, in or detained ated As in district court. we Hill filed federal malicious, frivolous, that is an action issue, on this and remand we need reverse relief upon to state a claim which fails remaining arguments. not address Hill’s may granted, unless the incarcerated be ser- Reversed and remanded. danger imminent person is under injury. physical ious Hart, JJ., Baker concur. and argues Hill 16-68-607. actions provision is limited to this Justice, Baker, concurring. Karen R. issue in Arkansas courts. This is an agree majority’s decision with U we re- statutory interpretation, it; to join separately I write and novo, it for this court to as view de Gallagher and the Arkansas point out that v. meaning of a statute. Stivers decide the (“Board”) Laboratory Board State Crime (2003). State, 354 Ark. 118 S.W.3d of this in contravention have acted direct reads, just construe the statute as We interpretation of Arkansas Code ordinary and Usual- giving the words their in Davis Annotated section meaning language, in common ly accepted Deen, (per 2014 Ark. 437 S.W.3d plain language if the of the statute curiam). unambiguous, conveys a clear no to meaning, there is occasion
definite Davis, in Davis present In statutory interpretation. resort to rules Gallagher pursuant request submitted a Singleton v. of Information Act to Arkansas’s Freedom construing Additionally, in S.W.3d 891. (“FOIA”) pertaining to his seeking records statute, stat- place we beside other request, denying In Davis’s criminal case. in to the matter utes relevant prosecut- Davis that the advised meaning question ascribe and effect re- give permission must from the whole. Id. derived to Ar- of the information lease 12-12-312. Annotated section kansas Code statutory language Although the appealed the circuit court’s order Davis expressly indi section 16-68-607 does not of manda- dismissing writ cate whether cases filed federal statute, attorney, or against prosecuting guid mus count as strikes under the alternative, directing for an surrounding from gleaned ance can be -Laboratory pro- Arkansas State Crime Annotated 12-12-312 direct him vide with records related to his crimi- ing the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory nal, appeal, On case. determined that requested release the information to legal Davis had a requested to his Davis. explained: and further
information Turning present case, to the the record While Code Annotated sec- contains several letters -from Gallagher is- 12-12-312(a)(l)(A)(ii) tion states in response sued to Hill’s FOIA request. “information shall be released only un- In letter, the January like in der and direction a court of Davis, Gallagher request pur- denied Hill’s competent jurisdiction, the prosecuting suant Arkansas Code Annotated section attorney having jurisdiction 4,2015 In letter, 12-12-312. case, or over the apparently response January *4 appointed assigned case,” or to the the 31, letter, Gallagher 2015 explained that he also statute states subsection not did misconstrue Arkansas Anno- (a)(l)(B)(i) nothing in the section is tated section 12-12-312.1 Additionally, the of a “diminish or defendant a copy enclosed of the Board’s or attorney his her to full access to all 13, declaratory October order issued pertaining Thus, records to the case.” response to another incarcerated indi- court, duty of the the circuit prosecuting request.2 FOIA vidual’s The declaratory attorney, public and to grant defender order in pertinent part states as follows: permission to release information is dis- 12. [T]he Board finds that Ark.Code cretionary as it in- releasing relates 12—312(a)(l)(A)(ii) § Ann. governs 12— formation to public; the records, files, the “release” of “[t]he and statute clear defendant has a kept, obtained, information” or retained right to access all by the Crime Lab in cases where 17State his language case. The of the statute the cause of and manner a victim’s death also laboratory mandates that “[t]he are criminal in nature. Pursuant to the shall disclose to a or his or defendant ordinary accepted meaning of the her all evidence the defen- § employed words Ark.'Code Ann. 12- obtained, dant’s case that kept, or 312(a)(l)(A)(ii), records, files, “[t]he 12— by laboratory.” retained and information shall only be 'released 12—312(a)(l)(B)(ii) § (emphasis Ann. 12— under and of direction a court of added). competent jurisdiction, the prosecuting Davis, 2-3, at attorney having 'jurisdiction 437 S.W.3d Thus, case, 695. reversed remand over the or public defender Davis’s (em- ed case to the circuit assigned an or appointed court the case.” of entry added). an therein, phasis As used the ad- Hill, 1. In the 2015 letter to Galla- pros- do not have an authorization from a gher records, also wrote: ecutor to release their files or in- formation, records, plainly you I believe requested. states that the have Furthermore, kept, my files understanding you information obtained or re- tained the Arkansas State Crime Labo- longer are now a convict and no a defen- ratory in connection with a crime are dant. privileged and only confidential and can declaratory captioned released at the of 2. The direction order is “IN THE MCARTY, prosecutor public or a I defender. do MATTER OF RANDALL ADC your believe letter is a court order and I # 101565.” sense, general- apply it to taken in does understand “only,” its usual -verb regard ex- ly to a to whether the verb “released” and qualifies without records, files of currently a any-release or not “[t]he defendant. cludes State of the Arkansas information” The Board word “attor- understands n Crime it is at “the direction unless § Lab ney” as used in [Ark.Code] competent jurisdiction, 12-312(a)(l)(B)(i), an attorney to mean ju- attorney having criminal prosecuting representing a at law defendant. or over the risdiction Additionally, the Board finds assigned to the appointed or 12-12-312(a)(l)(B)(ii) Ark.Code Ann. be,” preceding term “shall case.” The does not reference or offer standard only,” “released phrase, indicates records, files, for the “release” or State -has legislature mandated information of Crime the State Lab. n comply this restric- Lab to. Crime .with 12-12- be,” (as “may opposed the term tion (B) 312(a) (ii) release is not the of rec- statutory have indicated which, would ords, of the but disclosure existence permission to exercise discretion to a or her evidence defendant course). alternate See Hattison choose attorney. is ordi- “disclose” The word . v denoting á narily understood revela- (1996); Fayett Klinger City , *5 facts, making something tion of known. 869 293 S.W.2d eville 732 The that the disclosure of Board finds (1987). unambigu- of is the existence evidence Furthermore, the finds Board ously releasing from" distinct evidence. 12-12-312(a)(l)(B)(i) § Ann.' Ark.Code Furthermore, finds the Board that the govern of records. the release not does to duty the disclose of existence It or offer stan- not reference does | § Ann. Ark.Code under 12- ^evidence records, of for the “release” the dard 312(a)(l)(B)(ii) towards “a de- runs 12— flies, Crime information of or the State attorney.” or fendant her As his .or of Its .is not the Lab. release noted, previously by the'word “defen- records, or- access but The to.records.. dant,” person a the Board understands accepted meanings the dinary and being is or accused crime who a sued employed in words in a court The Board law. does 12-312(a)(l)(B)(i) grant or do not extend it a understand to who apply to access any right anyone, to instead not a defendant. explain merely the statute recognize I that Arkansas Code While right a “not diminish” whatever does 12—312(b) Annotated section allows the may or or his her attorney” 12— “defendant to rulés regarding the promulgate Board to pertain- full access all records have to reports information by release of the or her un- ing his case. The to Board laboratory, may of the rules staff provi- to this mean derstands Here, despite to our contrary law. sions of Davis, Gallagher holding in Hill’s right denied any existing to not intended lessen request. opinion This Davis or was or her access a “defendant” 26, 2014, clearly pro- issued June “attorney” may other have under some yides interpretation of the statute at provision By of the law. the word “de- above, fendant,” explained per- As held that issue. Board understands prosecut- of the against duty defending son circuit who attorney, to court of charge in a law. Board
463 grant permission to release information is
discretionary relates the release of public;
information to the a de- has a all
fendant access Further, his case. Dams, laboratory shall disclose -to “[t]he or his or defendant her all
evidence case that defendant’s obtained,
kept, retained laborato- added.) 'Thus,
ry.” (Emphasis the Board
has violated Arkansas Code Annotated 12-12-312(b) through promul-
gation of contrary rules law its Octo- declaratory
ber order. Gallagher’s
Despite evi Board’s disagreement
dent with our decision in
Davis, I this opportunity take remind
both Board that is for
this court to decide what statute means.
Wagner v. 2010 Ark. (citing City S.W.3d Maddox v. Fort
Smith,
(2007)). Finally, this has matter now twice concerning
been before this court pauper, though pursuant
status as a even *6 holding
to our clearly Davis Hill is
entitled the records
case.
Hart, J., joins. SMITH, E.
James Petitioner Arkansas, Respondent
STATE
No. CR-02-228
Supreme Court Arkansas.
Opinion Delivered