CHARLES EDWARD JONES, SR. PETITIONER
HONORABLE QUINCEY ROSS, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS; RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR
PERMISSION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS [CHICOT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO.
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
Charles Edward Jones, Sr., filed a pro se petition for writ
of mandamus in which he contends that the Honorable Quincey
Ross, circuit judge, has not acted in a timely manner on a
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on May 30, 2017.
Although Jones's mandamus petition references a May 30,
2017 habeas petition, the partial record tendered with the
mandamus petition in this court contains a pro se habeas
petition file-marked on December 13, 2017, and an
accompanying motion for evidentiary hearing filed on June 22,
2018. After an initial response was filed by the Attorney
General's office on Judge Ross's behalf, this court
"requested Judge Ross to file an amended response within
ten days of the date of this opinion setting out whether the
habeas petition filed December 13, 2017, has been acted on[,
and] also directed that a copy of the filing entered on May
30, 2017, be submitted when the amended response is
filed." Jones v. Ross, 2019 Ark. 170.
Ross filed a timely amended response, attaching a copy of the
May 30, 2017 filing, which was a petition for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis "by which Jones sought
permission to proceed as an indigent in a habeas-corpus
proceeding against Wendy Kelley, Director of the Arkansas
Department of Correction." The amended response noted that
the partial tendered record in this court contained a copy of
a subsequent habeas petition filed in the same case bearing
the file-mark date of December 13, 2017, and that a hearing
had been set regarding Jones's "habeas
petition(s)." On June 18, 2019, Judge Ross tendered a
second amended response, stating that, during a hearing on
June 10, 2019, Jones's argument for issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus was considered. A June 12, 2019 file-marked order
was attached to the second amended response, and in the order
denying habeas relief, reference was made to Jones's May
30, 2017, petition for writ of habeas corpus.
purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established
right to enforce the performance of a duty. Williams v.
Porch, 2018 Ark. 1, 534 S.W.3d 152. A writ of mandamus
is issued by this court to compel an official or judge to
take some action. Id. A writ of mandamus will not
lie to control or review matters of discretion and is used to
enforce an established right. Id. Issuance of the
writ of mandamus is appropriate only when the duty to be
compelled is ministerial and not discretionary. Id.
it appears the respondent has complied with the request of
this court regarding the May 30, 2017 habeas petition, it
remains unclear what action has been taken with respect to
the December 13, 2017 habeas petition. As the amended
response indicated, a petition to proceed in forma pauperis
was filed on May 30, 2017, and a proposed petition for writ
of habeas corpus was attached to the petition to proceed in
forma pauperis as an exhibit. Based on the June 12, 2019 order,
it appears that the circuit court determined Jones was a
pauper, as the court proceeded to deny Jones relief on the
merits of the habeas petition. See Ark. R. Civ. P.
72 (2018); see generally Gardner v. Kelley, 2018
Ark. 212, 549 S.W.3d 349.
general rule, this court will not review issues that are moot
because to do so would be to render an advisory opinion,
which this court will not do. Griffin v. Alexander,
2017 Ark. 235. Generally, a case becomes moot when any
judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a
then existing controversy. Thornton v. Guynn, 2018
Ark. 211. Here, the circuit court has issued an order with
respect to the May 30, 2017 habeas petition. However, as
Judge Ross stated in his amended response, a subsequent
habeas petition was filed on December 13, 2017, and this
court specifically requested an amended response setting out
whether the habeas petition filed December 13, 2017, had been
acted on, which we have yet to receive. Whether the June 12,
2019 order disposing of the May 30, 2017 habeas petition also
addresses or includes the December 13, 2017 habeas petition
is unclear. As such, we request Judge Ross to file an amended
response within ten days of the date of this opinion setting
out whether the habeas petition filed December 13, 2017, has
been acted on.
response requested; motion granted.
The attached exhibit contained, as
referenced by respondent, "a proposed habeas
petition" appended to Jones's in forma pauperis
The motion for permission to file a
second amended response to petition for writ of mandamus
requests that the second amended response be filed in lieu of
being tendered as it was an additional amended response to
advise the court of the circuit court's disposition
regarding the underlying action-not the initial amended
response to be in compliance with the court's request in
Jones, 2019 Ark. 170.
The petition to proceed in forma
pauperis bears a file-mark date of May 30, 2017; however, the
attached exhibits bear ...