Craig Steve Bentrup v. Christopher Epps , 2014 Miss. App. LEXIS 725 ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2012-CP-02032-COA
CRAIG STEVEN BENTRUP A/K/A CRAIG APPELLANT
BENTRUP
v.
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, COMMISSIONER, APPELLEE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/2012
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN HUEY EMFINGER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CRAIG STEVE BENTRUP (PRO SE)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ANTHONY LOUIS SCHMIDT JR.
JAMES M. NORRIS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF TRIAL JUDGE
DENIED; MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION DENIED; ACTIONS BY THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AS TO LOSS OF LEGAL
DOCUMENTS, HAIRCUTS, AND RULES
VIOLATION REPORT AFFIRMED; AND
OTHER INMATE COMPLAINTS
DISMISSED DUE TO FAILURE TO
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 12/16/2014
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ.
GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Craig Steven Bentrup filed five grievances with the Administrative Remedy Program
(ARP) of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Unsatisfied with the
decisions, he appealed to the Rankin County Circuit Court. The circuit court found that
Bentrup exhausted his administrative remedies on three claims, reviewed those claims, and
affirmed the MDOC actions. The circuit court denied the other two claims because Bentrup
did not exhaust all administrative remedies and dismissed them as premature. We find no
error and affirm.
FACTS
¶2. Bentrup is an inmate incarcerated with MDOC. His five grievances were labeled as
ARP I through V. The circuit court affirmed MDOC’s decisions as to ARP I, II, and V. In
ARP I, Bentrup alleged that MDOC took his property. In ARP II, Bentrup alleged concerns
over MDOC’s haircut procedures. In ARP V, Bentrup asked that a Rule Violation Report
(RVR) be expunged from his record.
¶3. The circuit court did not review MDOC’s decisions as to ARP III and IV on the
grounds that Bentrup had not exhausted his administrative remedies. In ARP III, Bentrup
alleged discrimination. In ARP IV, Bentrup claimed that MDOC deprived him of his
personal property.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4. This Court applies the same standard of review that the lower courts are bound to
follow when considering a decision by a chancery or circuit court regarding an agency
action, in this case the MDOC. Clay v. Epps, 19 So. 3d 743, 745 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
We will review the appeal to determine whether the administrative agency’s order “(1) was
unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) was arbitrary or capricious, (3) was beyond the
power or the administrative agency to make, or (4) violated some statutory or constitutional
2
right of the aggrieved party.” Id. (citing Siggers v. Epps, 962 So. 2d 78, 80 (¶4) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2007)).
DISCUSSION
I. ARP I
¶5. In ARP I, Bentrup argued that he should be compensated for the loss of his property
– legal materials that went missing while being transported from Harrison County to Central
Mississippi Correctional Facility (CMCF). When MDOC received Bentrup’s complaint,
MDOC began an investigation and asked Bentrup to provide sufficient evidence to
substantiate his lost property allegations. Bentrup told MDOC that the property slip was in
his permanent case file.
¶6. Bentrup also provided MDOC his testimony and the statements of other inmates.
Bentrup claimed that he was told by MDOC staff that they knew the location of his legal
documents. According to the First Step Response Form, MDOC’s staff informed Bentrup
that “someone may bring you to ID to get the property.”
¶7. Bentrup cites Johnson v. King, 85 So. 3d 307, 308 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), to claim
that the loss of his legal materials is analogous to the confiscation of an inmate’s drinking
mugs. However, in Johnson, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that he possessed
the drinking mug because MDOC confiscated all drinking mugs. Id. at 309 (¶2). Here,
MDOC did not confiscate Bentrup’s property. As a result, it was necessary for Bentrup to
establish that he possessed the particular legal documents that he claimed were lost.
¶8. MDOC determined that Bentrup could not physically produce a property slip showing
all of the property that he claimed was missing. Instead, MDOC replaced two of the several
3
documents that Bentrup claimed were missing. We find that MDOC’s decision to replace
some but not all of Bentrup’s alleged lost property was based on substantial evidence. The
decision was not arbitrary and capricious, and was within the scope of MDOC’s authority.
Accordingly, we find no merit to this issue.
II. ARP II
¶9. In ARP II, Bentrup complained to MDOC about the staff not following proper haircut
procedures. Bentrup took statements from inmates and requested that pictures taken post-
haircuts be considered by the MDOC as evidence of unsanitary haircut procedures. MDOC
decided to close Bentrup’s claim by ensuring him that certain precautions would be taken to
correct the issue.
¶10. Bentrup admitted that he did not suffer an injury from a haircut. Bentrup claimed that
future blood work could show that he contracted a disease by virtue of a prior unsanitary
haircut. Thus, Bentrup complains of an injury that he believes came from the haircut, but he
cannot show an injury.
¶11. In Crawford Commercial Constructors, Inc. v. Marine Industrial Residential
Insulation, Inc., 437 So. 2d 15, 16 (Miss. 1983), the court held that the injury must have
existed at the time the action was filed.
Under our authorities there must be a present, existent actionable title or
interest which must be completed at the time the cause of action is filed. A
mere inchoate right is not sufficient and neither is a prospective danger of
injury. In Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Baird, 76 Miss. 521, 24 So. 195, 196
(1898), this Court addressed the issue in the following words, “It is certainly
an undisputable and invariable rule of law that a right of action must be
complete when an action therefor is commenced.” See also Brown Brothers &
Co. v. The Bank of Mississippi, 31 Miss. 454, 459 (1856), wherein it is stated,
“we consider it to be the well-settled, general rule, that the facts which
4
constitute the ground of a suit must exist at the time the suit is instituted.”
Id. (internal citations omitted). Therefore, because Bentrup admittedly suffered no injury at
the time that he filed his complaint, we find no merit to this issue.
III. ARP III
¶12. In ARP III, Bentrup complained that MDOC staff discriminated against him. The
circuit court held that Bentrup had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to this claim.
However, we find that Bentrup had indeed exhausted his administrative remedies. The
record includes MDOC’s final decision, dated September 20, 2012, which was given to
Bentrup on October 9, 2012. Because we find that Bentrup exhausted his administrative
remedies, we will review Bentrup’s discrimination claim.
¶13. Bentrup alleges that the prison staff told “the gangs that it’s ok to attack an old, white,
peon, writ-writer and take his property and/or place contraband on him.” Specifically, he
complains of an incident where a cell phone was “planted” on him. Next, he alleged that he
was coerced to “take the rap for a black gang member concerning the possession of
marijuana.” Then, he complains of being assaulted by inmates early one morning. Lastly,
Bentrup believed that the prison staff made him a “target.”
¶14. Bentrup did not present any other evidence or case authority to support his claim of
discrimination. In Mack v. State, 943 So. 2d 73, 77 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006), an inmate
alleged that the Mississippi Parole Board denied his parol because of his race. However, the
inmate “provide[d] no specific examples to show that his treatment [was] not equal to the .
. . treatment received by other inmates. Mack fail[ed] to point out even one incident of a
similarly situated inmate receiving the parole that has been denied to Mack.” Id. Also, in
5
Hopson v. Mississippi State Parole Board, 976 So. 2d 973, 977-78 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App.
2008), this Court held, “[w]hile race is a suspect class entitled to strict scrutiny, [the inmate]
has failed to show evidence either in his petition or in the record that establishe[d] that he
suffered any equal protection violation by the application of the statute based on a suspect
classification.”
¶15. MDOC concluded that Bentrup failed to show evidence to support the allegations of
his complaint, and there is no other evidence in the record that would establish that Bentrup
suffered any equal protection violation or unlawful discrimination. We find no merit to this
issue.
IV. ARP IV
¶16. In ARP IV, Bentrup claims that MDOC deprived him of his allowable personal
property. Bentrup provided MDOC with a list of requested items. The circuit court held that
Betrup had not exhausted his administrative remedies and dismissed the claim as premature.
¶17. After the circuit court’s ruling, on April 4, 2013, MDOC gave Bentrup his list of
requested items. As a result, this claim is now moot. “A case is moot so long as a judgment
on the merits, if rendered, would be of no practical benefit or detriment to defendant.” Falls
v. Jefferson Davis Cnty. Pub. Sch. Bd., 95 So. 3d 1223, 1225 (¶10) (Miss. 2012). Because
Bentrup received his list of request items, a judgment on the merits would be of no practical
benefit or detriment to Bentrup.
V. ARP V
¶18. In ARP V, Bentrup claims that he received an unwarranted RVR on his record after
a fight. However, MDOC never processed an RVR on Bentrup’s record concerning that
6
incident. MDOC only made a note on Bentrup’s file of the event as an “extraordinary
occurrence.” As a result, based on the authority cited above, we find this issue to be moot.
Since MDOC never processed the RVR, there was no RVR on Bentrup’s record to expunge.
¶19. Finding no reversible error in the circuit court’s judgment, we affirm.
¶20. THE JUDGMENT OF THE RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO RANKIN
COUNTY.
LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR
AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN THE
RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
7