MacKenzie Willis v. Lt. Westley, Lt. Brooks and Warden Wendell Banks;

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2018-CP-01466-COA
MACKENZIE WILLIS APPELLANT
v.
LT. WESTLEY, LT. BROOKS AND WARDEN APPELLEES
WENDELL BANKS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/17/2018
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MACKENZIE WILLIS (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DARRELL CLAYTON BAUGHN
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/17/2019
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., GREENLEE AND LAWRENCE, JJ.
BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. MacKenzie Willis is an inmate in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (MDOC), serving concurrent sentences of fifteen years and twenty years for the
unlawful touching of a child and statutory rape, respectively.1 After the Rankin County
Circuit Court denied his requested relief and dismissed his complaint related to an MDOC
decision in its Administrative Remedy Program (ARP), Willis appealed the judgment.
Finding no error, we affirm the court’s dismissal.
1
At the time of these proceedings, Willis was incarcerated at the Rankin County
Correctional Facility. According to the MDOC website, he was reassigned to the George
County Correctional Facility in February 2019.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On September 12, 2016, the MDOC issued a rules violation report (RVR) against
Willis for possession of a contraband cell phone and battery. A disciplinary hearing was
held, and the MDOC’s hearing officer, Lieutenant Latisha Brooks, found Willis guilty of the
violation and sentenced him to a loss of privileges for eighteen months. Willis appealed the
decision through the ARP on October 12. MDOC Warden Wendell Banks denied the appeal,
finding Willis had not submitted any new evidence or information and had received a fair and
impartial hearing. Willis acknowledged the decision by signing a step-one response form on
November 10.
¶3. On December 9, 2016, Willis filed a complaint for judicial review with the circuit
court, alleging that his due-process rights had been violated.2 The court dismissed his claim
for lack of jurisdiction, and he filed an appeal with this Court. We reversed and remanded,
finding the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction because Willis had exhausted his
administrative remedies and had filed his complaint within the thirty-day period required
under Mississippi Code Annotated sections 47-5-803 and 47-5-807 (Rev. 2015). Willis v.
Westley, 243 So. 3d 805, 809 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).3
2
Although Willis named Lt. Wesley as a defendant, along with Lt. Brooks and
Warden Banks, only Lt. Brooks is listed on the RVR as the hearing officer. We will
collectively refer to the appellees as the MDOC.
3
The dissent argued that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction because Willis
had not filed proper service of process against the Attorney General’s Office as required
under Rule 4(d)(5) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Willis, 243 So. 3d at 809
(¶¶20-22).
2
¶4. On August 7, 2018, Willis filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of
Appeals, requesting “an expedient ruling” by the circuit court. This Court ordered the circuit
court to respond to the petition within thirty days. The circuit court, in turn, ordered the
MDOC to file a response to the merits of Willis’s claims with the court. The MDOC moved
to quash the summons and to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Willis had failed to provide
the MDOC with service of process through the Attorney General’s Office as required by
Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(5) and that the MDOC had not made a general
appearance.
¶5. On September 17, 2018, the circuit court denied the requested relief and dismissed
Willis’s complaint, finding the MDOC’s decision “was supported by substantial evidence,
was not arbitrary or capricious, was within the scope and powers of the MDOC and did not
violate the constitutional rights of the petitioner.”4 Appealing the circuit court’s judgment,
Willis claims that the RVR form was incomplete (i.e., that the RVR did not contain the
location of the incident) and that his right to due process was violated.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6. We “will not disturb an administrative agency’s decision on appeal ‘unless the
decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond
the agency’s scope or powers or violated the constitutional or statutory rights of the
aggrieved party.’” Fields v. Ladner, 226 So. 3d 599, 601 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting
4
This Court subsequently dismissed Willis’s petition for a writ of mandamus as moot.
3
Siggers v. Epps, 962 So. 2d 78, 80 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)). “There is a rebuttable
presumption [that] favors the agency’s decision, and the challenging party has the burden of
proving the contrary.” Goul v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 210 So. 3d 560, 562 (¶9) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2017) (quoting Ross v. Epps, 922 So. 2d 847, 849 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)).
Jurisdiction, however, is reviewed de novo as it is a question of law. Siggers, 962 So. 2d at
80 (¶4).
DISCUSSION
I. Whether the circuit court erred in dismissing Willis’s claim.
¶7. In our prior decision, we determined that the circuit court could consider the issue of
personal jurisdiction on remand. Willis, 243 So. 3d at 808 (¶14). However, the circuit court
did not address any jurisdictional issues but affirmed the MDOC’s decision based on the
merits. The MDOC continues to argue that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction
because Willis failed to serve the MDOC with service of process through the Mississippi
Office of the Attorney General pursuant to Rule 4(d)(5). We reject the MDOC’s argument
based on our decision in Jobe v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, No. 2018-CP-
00087-COA, at 10-11 (¶¶25-27) (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2019), of even date herewith. In
Jobe, we conclude that an inmate’s petition seeking review of an ARP decision is not a
“regular civil filing” requiring service of process under Rule 4(d)(5), but a notice of appeal
from an administrative agency governed by Uniform Civil Rule of Circuit and County Court
5.04. Therefore, we find the court had personal jurisdiction in the instant case.
4
¶8. Willis contends that the failure to list his specific housing unit, zone/tier, or cell/bed
on the RVR was evidence that the MDOC did not review the form for completeness and that
this failure to follow the MDOC’s standard operating procedures violated his due-process
rights. He has cited no authority to support this claim. The MDOC disciplinary procedures
provide that disciplinary reports should include, “but are not limited to,” the following
information: the specific rule violated, a formal statement of the charge, any unusual inmate
behavior, any staff witnesses, any physical evidence and its disposition, any immediate action
taken, and the reporting staff member’s signature and time of the report. The defender’s
name, number, housing unit, zone/tier, cell/bed are designated as “additional information”
in the procedural rule.5 The MDOC handbook states that an RVR “will include the violation
charge, essential facts supporting the alleged violation, processing actions taken (to include
requests for investigation and lists of requesting witnesses), findings and the disciplinary
action taken.”6 The RVR provided Willis with the notice of the charge against him and
notice of the hearing. He was also provided the opportunity to be present at the hearing and
call witnesses. Willis also does not deny the allegation in the RVR that he possessed
contraband.
5
Mississippi Department of Corrections, Standard Operating Procedures:
Disciplinary Procedures, No. 18-01-01, available upon request at
https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/Admin-Finance/Documents/PublicAccessPolicies.pdf (last
visited Dec. 17, 2019).
6
Mississippi Department of Corrections, Inmate Handbook (2016), current version
available at https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/Inmate-Info/Documents/CHAPTER_XI.pdf, ch. XI,
part II, subpart F (last visited Dec. 17, 2019).
5
¶9. Willis also received a loss of privileges as a result of the violation. This Court has
held “that not all administrative disciplinary actions are subject to a due-process analysis.”
Green v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 126 So. 3d 65, 67 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Mixon
v. Enlers, 90 So. 3d 635, 637 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)). In Mixon, we determined that the
loss of privileges for thirty days was “not a property right that would constitute a violation
of [the inmate’s] constitutionally protected liberty interest” but “merely [a] change[] in the
condition of his confinement. . . .” Mixon, 90 So. 3d at 637 at (¶6).
¶10. Accordingly, we find no error in the circuit court’s dismissal of Willis’s complaint.
Based on our disposition, we decline to address the remaining arguments raised by the
MDOC on appeal except for its claim regarding the grant of IFP status on appeal.
II. Whether the circuit court erred in granting Willis leave to file in
forma pauperis.
¶11. Willis filed the circuit court’s February 1, 2017 order granting him leave to file with
forma pauperis (IFP) status on appeal. While that IFP order is from his prior appeal, Willis
has filed an updated affidavit of poverty with this Court on October 5, 2018, which is the day
he filed his notice of appeal in this case. Although the MDOC complains that Willis is
“trick[ing]” this Court into accepting the old IFP order to avoid paying costs, we find no
issue with the submission of the order in this particular instance because this appeal
originates from the same action and proceedings from the prior order.
¶12. The MDOC further argues that Willis is not entitled to IFP status on appeal because
his suit is a purely civil action, citing Nelson v. Bank of Mississippi, 498 So. 2d 365, 366
6
(Miss. 1986) (holding that an indigent civil litigant does not have a right to proceed IFP on
appeal) and a 1988 opinion by Mississippi’s Attorney General, stating that it was “aware of
no authority” empowering a board of supervisors “to appropriate money to pay the costs of
civil appeals prosecuted by private citizens, notwithstanding said citizens may be indigent.”
Miss. Att’y Gen. Op., 1988 WL 249981, Jack E. Harper Jr. (Mar. 21, 1988). Subsequently,
in Johnson v. State, 623 So. 2d 265, 266-67 (Miss. 1993), the Mississippi Supreme Court
provided an exception to Nelson, holding that while an indigent civil litigant may not proceed
IFP in an appeal, this rule does not apply to appeals brought under the Uniform Post-
Conviction Collateral Relief Act. Post-conviction collateral actions, while technically civil
in nature, deal with criminal matters. Id. at 266 (citing Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-7, 99-39-
25(1) (Supp. 1992)).
¶13. Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-5-76 (Rev. 2015) governs the payment of
costs by the MDOC for an inmate’s filing of a civil action. After an in-depth examination
of section 47-5-76 and its legislative history, specifically its most recent amendments in 1998
and 2005, we conclude that an inmate may be granted IFP status on appeal under the statute.
In 1989, the Legislature enacted section 47-5-76, providing that if an inmate is a plaintiff in
a civil action and has filed a pauper’s affidavit, the MDOC “shall pay, out of any funds
available for such purpose” all court costs assessed against the inmate. Miss. Code Ann.
§ 47-5-76 (Supp. 1989). The statute was amended in 1993, restricting the payment of costs
to those civil actions filed against a department employee that pertained to a condition of
7
confinement:
If an inmate plaintiff files a pauper’s affidavit in a civil action and the
defendant is an employee of the department and the civil action pertains to the
inmate’s condition of confinement, the department shall pay, out of any funds
available for such purpose, all costs of court assessed against such inmate in
such civil action.
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-76 (Rev. 1993).
¶14. In Moreno v. State, 637 So. 2d 200 (Miss. 1994), an inmate challenged whether IFP
status under section 47-5-76 could extend to an inmate’s filing of an appeal. The Mississippi
Supreme Court concluded that the statute “unambiguous[ly] . . . allows an inmate plaintiff
only to proceed [IFP] at the trial level, if all of the statutory requirements are met, but not at
the appellate level.” Moreno, 637 So. 2d at 202 (emphasis added) (noting statutory language
used was “plaintiff” and “defendant”—“legal terms of art . . . commonly understood to
describe the parties to a civil suit”).
¶15. In 1996, the Legislature added subsection (2) to section 47-5-76 to address repeated
frivolous filings by an inmate.7 In 1998, subsection (1) was amended to include—for the first
time—language referencing an inmate’s filing an appeal. See Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-76(Rev. 2004) (stating the department shall not pay court costs if the inmate had on three or
more occasions “brought an action or appeal that was dismissed on the grounds that it was
7
Shortly after the 1996 amendment, the supreme court reiterated in Carson v.
Hargett, 689 So. 2d 753, 755 (Miss. 1996), that section 47-5-76 is only applicable at the trial
level, not the appellate level. Because the action in Carson involved a writ of habeas
corpus, however, the supreme court rejected the State’s argument that the inmate pay the
costs of the action. Carson, 689 So. 2d at 755.
8
frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted”) (emphasis
added). The most recent version of section 47-5-76 is from the 2005 amendment, which
provides:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, if an inmate plaintiff
files a pauper’s affidavit in a civil action and the defendant is an employee of
the department and the civil action pertains to the inmate’s condition of
confinement, the department shall pay, out of any funds available for such
purpose, all costs of court assessed against the inmate in the civil action.
However, the department shall not pay the costs of court if the inmate has on
three (3) or more prior occasions, while incarcerated, brought an action or
appeal that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
An inmate shall not bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action
or proceeding in forma pauperis if the prisoner has, on three (3) or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless
the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
(2) An inmate who proceeds in forma pauperis in a civil action shall pay
twenty percent (20%) per month of the funds in his or her inmate account
to the Department of Corrections until all filing fees and costs of his or her
litigation are paid to the department. The department may withdraw
such funds automatically from the account of any inmate permitted a civil
filing as a pauper. If an inmate is allowed an appeal in forma pauperis of
a civil action, the inmate shall reimburse all costs and fees to the
department by automatic withdrawal each month in the amount of twenty
percent (20%) of his or her funds until all state funds are reimbursed.
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-76 (Rev. 2015) (emphasis added) (2005 additions in bold). We find
that this language referencing appeals in the 1998 and 2005 amendments allows a trial court
to grant an inmate IFP status on appeal. Willis filed this action against department
employees under section 47-5-76(1), challenging a condition of confinement (i.e., his
9
temporary loss of privileges). We conclude that the statute’s language provides the trial court
with authority to allow him to proceed IFP on appeal. Accordingly, we find no error.
¶16. We find it appropriate to assess costs of this appeal to the appellant, despite his IFP
status, as the MDOC is entitled to withdraw funds from Willis’s inmate account until all fees
and costs of his appeal are repaid. As the Rankin County Board of Supervisors paid Willis’s
filing costs on appeal, the MDOC would presumably reimburse the board for the costs of the
appeal.
¶17. AFFIRMED.
CARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, TINDELL,
McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.
10