Title: Steve J. Jackson and Miles King v. Jim Guy Tucker, Governor of Arkansas. Petition denied. Jesson, C.J., Brown and Roaf, JJ., not participating. [ASCII, WP5.1]

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Steve J. JACKSON and Miles King v. Jim Guy
TUCKER, Governor of Arkansas

96-792                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered July 12, 1996


Courts -- jurisdiction -- supreme court's jurisdiction is appellate
     in nature except where specific law or precedent has
     established authority in original action -- no authority cited
     -- petition denied. -- The supreme court's jurisdiction is
     appellate in nature except where specific law or precedent has
     established authority for it to proceed in an original action;
     where the moving parties cited no such legal authority under
     which the supreme court could proceed in an original action
     concerning the circumstances set out in their complaint, and
     the supreme court knew of none; and where the moving parties'
     complaint dealt with factual issues that required the taking
     of evidence, the supreme court, holding that a trial court had
     the jurisdiction and was established to deal with such
     evidentiary matters, denied the petitioners' request for
     extraordinary and emergency relief against the respondent.


     Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief and Emergency Relief
through a Writ of Prohibition/Mandamus/Certiorari, Quo Warranto,
Restraining Order or Injunction; denied.
     Petitioners, Pro Se.
     No response.

     Per Curiam.*ADVREP*SC1*






STEVE J. JACKSON AND MILES
KING,                         
               PETITIONERS,

V.

JIM GUY TUCKER, GOVERNOR OF
ARKANSAS,
               RESPONDENT.



96-792

Opinion Delivered:  7-12-96

AMENDED PETITION FOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND EMERGENCY
RELIEF THROUGH A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION/MANDAMUS/
CERTIORARI, QUO WARRANTO
RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION 
 

PETITION DENIED



                           PER CURIAM

     Steve J. Jackson and Miles King file an original action in
this court requesting a restraining order against Jim Guy Tucker,
as Governor of Arkansas.  Shown as plaintiffs in their complaint
and amended complaint, they ask for an expedited hearing so this
court can determine whether defendant Jim Guy Tucker should be
prohibited from acting as Governor.  The gravamen of the complaint,
as amended, is to challenge the validity of appointments and grants
made by Mr. Tucker after Mr. Tucker was found guilty of two
felonies in a federal district court proceeding.
     We know of no authority under which the moving parties may
file an original action in this court, and they cite no applicable
precedent.  First, they cite Rule 1-2(a)(6), but that rule sets out
this court's appellate jurisdiction in cases of quo warranto,
prohibition, injunction, or mandamus.  Next, they cite Rule 6-1
which is this court's rule pertaining to petitions for
extraordinary relief involving special proceedings.  In Rule 6-
1(a), the rule provides that, in cases in which the jurisdiction of
the court is in fact appellate although in form original, such as
petitions for writs of prohibition, certiorari, or mandamus, the
pleadings with certified exhibits from the trial court (if
applicable) are treated as the record.  Rule 6-1(c) and (e) then
address that, when filing a petition under Rule 6-1(a), petitioners
may seek relief to stay the trial court proceeding, so that a
briefing schedule can be set by this court.  Those provisions,
again, invoke this court's authority to review a trial court's
proceeding.
     Rule 6-5 is also cited by the moving parties, but that rule
merely establishes the procedure where this court's jurisdiction is
original rather than appellate.  Rule 6-5 specifically mentions
Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, which specifically
provides this court with authority to review the validity of
statewide petitions in certain circumstances.  Although not
mentioned in Rule 6-5, this court has exercised original
jurisdiction where its contempt powers were at issue.  Osborne v.
Power, 322 Ark. 229,