Purifoy v. Griffen ( 2015 )

Cite as 2015 Ark. 171
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-14-1008
IVORY PURIFOY Opinion Delivered April 16, 2015
PETITIONER
PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
V. MANDAMUS
[PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NOS. 60CR-96-871, 60CR-96-1346]
HON. WENDELL LEE GRIFFEN,
JUDGE
RESPONDENT
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND
MOOT IN PART.
PER CURIAM
This court requested an amended response from the respondent in this matter, the
Honorable Wendell Lee Griffen. Petitioner Ivory Purifoy filed a petition for writ of mandamus
in this court alleging that Judge Griffen had failed to act in a timely manner on a pro se petition
for declaratory judgment that petitioner had filed in the Pulaski County Circuit Court on June
27, 2014, in two criminal cases, 60CR-96-871 and 60CR-96-1346. The declaratory-judgment
petition sought relief concerning the calculation by the Arkansas Department of Correction
(ADC) of petitioner’s parole eligibility for his criminal convictions in the two cases, and the
mandamus petition requested that this court direct the judge to issue a ruling on the petition for
declaratory judgment. Having now received an amended response and a second amended
response, we now hold that the mandamus petition is denied in part and moot in part.
Judge Griffen filed an initial response to the petition for the writ in which he averred that
the matter had been disposed of through a written order entered on December 3, 2014. Because
Cite as 2015 Ark. 171
the order appeared to address only one of the two criminal cases, 60CR-96-1346, this court
requested that Judge Griffen file an amended response addressing whether the December 3,
2014 order was intended to encompass 60CR-96-871. Purifoy v. Griffen, 2015 Ark. 56 (per
curiam).
Judge Griffen filed an amended response and a second amended response. Although the
first amended response averred that there had been an order entered disposing of the
declaratory-judgment petition in 60CR-96-871, a copy of the order that was attached to the
response had not been file-marked. In the second amended response, Judge Griffen indicates
that no order was entered in 60CR-96-871 because that case was determined to have been
assigned to a different judge.
It is the responsibility of the petitioner to name the correct respondent in a mandamus
action. Standridge v. Putman, 2014 Ark. 208 (per curiam). To the extent that petitioner’s
mandamus petition requests any action regarding the declaratory-judgment petition filed in
60CR-96-871, his petition is therefore denied because the case is not assigned to the respondent.
To the extent that petitioner sought a ruling on the declaratory-judgment petition as to 60CR-96-
1346, the mandamus petition is moot.
Petition denied in part and moot in part.
Ivory Purifoy, pro se petitioner.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.
2