Michael Vaughan v. Honorable Larry E. Thompson ( 2023 )

IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, RAP 40(D), THIS
OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN
UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A
COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG
WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO
THE ACTION.
RENDERED: AUGUST 24, 2023
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky
2023-SC-0105-OA
MICHAEL VAUGHAN PETITIONER
V. IN SUPREME COURT
HONORABLE LARRY E. THOMPSON, CHIEF RESPONDENT
JUDGE, KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
HONORABLE JERRY CROSBY II,
JUDGE, OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT;
JOSHUA CANUPP; JOHN GEISLER;
MARK RICE; RAVONNE SIMS;
DURRELL ST. CLAIR
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Michael Vaughan petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing
the Kentucky Court of Appeals has violated his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the federal Constitution, as well as his right to access
the courts under Section 14 of the Kentucky Constitution. The basis for this
writ is that Vaughan sought to file a 148-page brief in the Court of Appeals
regarding the merits of his appeal currently pending in that court. The Court of
Appeals denied his motion to exceed the page limit. Vaughn argues said order
denies him access to the courts, is a restriction on his freedom of speech, and
violates due process.
Our jurisdiction to entertain an original writ action regarding the action
or inaction of the Court of Appeals is conferred by Section 110(2)(a) of the
Kentucky Constitution. The Rules of Appellate Procedure state that in the
Court of Appeals, an Appellant’s initial brief “shall not exceed 8,750 words or
20 pages if computer generated and shall not exceed 25 pages if handwritten or
typewritten.” RAP 31(G)(2)(A). Although no rule explicitly authorizes a party to
file a motion to dispense with or exceed page limits in their briefing, such
motions are not unknown and are granted or denied on a case-by-case basis.
In other words, whether to allow a party to exceed page limits in their briefing
is discretionary.
A writ of mandamus, however, is only available “to compel a public
officer to perform a ministerial duty . . . .” Hamblen ex. rel. Byars v. Kentucky
Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 322 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Ky. App. 2010). A
ministerial duty is “one that requires only obedience to the orders of others, or
when the officer's duty is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely
execution of a specific act arising from fixed and designated facts.” Yanero v.
Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510, 522 (Ky. 2001). “While mandamus will lie to set a court
in motion, it cannot be used to control the result.” Kaufman v. Humphrey, 329
S.W.2d 575, 576 (Ky 1959) (quoting Hargis v. Swope, 114 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Ky.
1938)).
2
In this case, Vaughan filed a motion seeking to be allowed to file a 148-
page brief, well-beyond the page limits allowed in RAP 31(G)(2)(A). The Court of
Appeals considered that motion and denied it. The court’s order denying the
motion expressly allowed Vaughan thirty additional days to file a brief in
conformity with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals has no
ministerial duty to allow a party to exceed page limits in their briefing when
requested. The decision is wholly discretionary. Therefore, a writ of mandamus
cannot lie. Vaughan’s petition is denied.
Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert, Nickell, and Thompson, JJ., sitting. All
concur. VanMeter, C.J., not sitting.
ENTERED: August 24, 2023.
_______________________________________
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE
3