Title: Ex parte T.M.F.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel:  May 3, 2019
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2018-2019
____________________
1180454
____________________
Ex parte T.M.F.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Ex parte T.M.F.
(In re: Ex parte I.W.
v.
T.F.))
(Jefferson District Court, DR-18-500939;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2180428)
SELLERS, Justice.
1180454
T.M.F. petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to
review the March 5, 2019, order of the Court of Civil Appeals
denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, Ex parte T.M.F.
(No. 2180428, March 5, 2019), __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App.
2019) (table); T.M.F. sought a writ of mandamus directing the
Jefferson District Court to vacate its order denying his
motion for a change of venue in an underlying case involving
a petition for protection from abuse from Jefferson County to
Mobile County and to enter an order transferring the case to
Mobile County. We dismiss the petition for a writ of
certiorari. 
Rule 21(e), Ala. R. App. P., sets forth the procedures
for seeking review of decisions of the Courts of Appeals
granting or, as in this case, denying a petition for a writ of
mandamus.  Rule 21(e) states, in relevant part:
"(1) A decision of a court of appeals on an
original 
petition 
for 
writ 
of 
mandamus 
or
prohibition or other extraordinary writ (i.e., a
decision on a petition filed in the court of
appeals) may be reviewed de novo in the supreme
court, and an application for rehearing in the court
of appeals is not a prerequisite for such review. 
If an original petition for extraordinary relief has
been denied by the court of appeals, review may be
had by filing a similar petition in the supreme
2
1180454
court (and, in such a case, in the supreme court the
petition shall seek a writ directed to the trial
judge). ...
"....
"(3) Without regard to whether the court of
appeals has issued an opinion, rehearing may be
sought in the court of appeals, but if a rehearing
is sought, then review in the supreme court shall be
by petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule
39[, Ala. R. App. P.]."
(Emphasis added.)
Rather than filing a petition for a writ of mandamus in
this Court seeking de novo review of the issue before the
Court of Civil Appeals in denying his petition for a writ of
mandamus, T.M.F. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
pursuant to Rule 39, Ala. R. App. P.   However, under Rule
21(e), Rule 39 comes into play only if T.M.F. had first sought
a rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals. Because T.M.F. did
not file an application for rehearing in the Court of Civil
Appeals, his only avenue for seeking review in this Court
would be filing a petition for a writ of mandamus.  Rule
21(e); see also generally State v. Lewis, 907 So. 2d 1020
(Ala. 2005). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of
certiorari is dismissed. 
3
1180454
PETITION DISMISSED.
Bolin, Shaw, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, and Mitchell, JJ., concur
in the result.
4
1180454
PARKER, Chief Justice (concurring in the result).
   I agree that T.M.F.'s petition should be dismissed.
However, I disagree with the conclusion of the main opinion
that mandamus is the exclusive avenue for seeking review of
the Court of Civil Appeals' decision on a mandamus petition
where the losing party has not filed an application for
rehearing. This exclusive view lacks a clear basis in the
Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure and contradicts the
plain language of those Rules.
As a threshold matter, Rule 39 allows certiorari review
in this procedural context. Rule 39 provides generally for
certiorari review of "decisions" of the Court of Civil
Appeals, without limiting such decisions to those on appeals
or 
otherwise 
excluding 
mandamus 
decisions. 
See 
Rule
39(a)(1), (b), (b)(3), Ala. R. App. P. 
In turn, although Rules 21 and 39 allow mandamus review
in this context, they do not expressly exclude certiorari
review. This nonexclusivity is apparent from the use in
those rules of permissive rather than mandatory language to
describe mandamus review.
5
1180454
As a contrasting example, if the losing party below
applies for rehearing, then certiorari is the exclusive
avenue for review because Rule 21(e)(3) uses mandatory
language: "[I]f a rehearing [of a court of appeals' mandamus
decision] is sought, then review in the supreme court shall
be by petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 39
...." (Emphasis added.)
If the losing party does not apply for rehearing,
however, Rule 21(e)(1) describes mandamus review using
permissive language:
"A decision of a court of appeals on an original
petition for writ of mandamus ... may be reviewed
de novo in the supreme court .... If an original
petition for extraordinary relief has been denied
by the court of appeals, review may be had by
filing a similar petition in the supreme court
.... If an original petition has been granted by
the court of appeals, review may be had by filing
in the supreme court a petition for writ of
mandamus ...."
(Emphasis added.) Similarly, Rule 39(j) cross-references
Rule 21(e) using permissive language: "A party aggrieved by
a decision of a court of appeals on a petition for a writ of
mandamus ... is entitled to review in the Supreme Court as
provided in Rule 21(e)." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, Rules
 
6
1180454
21(e)(1) and 39(j) do not exclude certiorari review. See
also Ed R. Haden, Practice Guide: Alabama Appellate Practice
§ 9.06 (LexisNexis Matthew Bender 2018) ("Rule 21(e) review
by writ is an alternative to review by a petition for
certiorari under Rule 39, Ala. R. App. P. If an application
for rehearing is filed with the court of appeals, however,
the 14-day period of Rule 21(e)(2) will run and review will
have to be by a petition for certiorari. See Rule 21(e)(3),
Ala. R. App. P." (emphasis added)). 
Moreover, under the exclusive view taken by the main
opinion, an application for rehearing becomes a prerequisite
to 
certiorari 
review 
in 
this 
context. 
This 
outcome
contradicts the plain language of Rule 39(b)(1): "The filing
of an application for rehearing in the Court of Civil
Appeals is not a prerequisite to review by certiorari in the
Supreme Court."
Although the main opinion cites State v. Lewis, 907 So.
2d 1020 (Ala. 2005), that case does not support the
exclusive view. Lewis, applying Rule 21(e)(3), held that
certiorari is the exclusive avenue if the party seeking
review has applied for rehearing in the court of appeals.
 
7
1180454
Id. at 1021. It did not hold the converse -- that certiorari
is not an avenue if the party seeking review has not applied
for rehearing.
Because the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure allow
certiorari review in this context, I disagree with the
reasoning in the main opinion for dismissing T.M.F.'s
petition. Nevertheless, the petition should be dismissed
because 
it 
fails 
to 
comply 
with 
certain 
procedural
requirements for certiorari review in Rule 39. Therefore, I
concur in the result.
 
8
1180454
BRYAN, Justice (concurring in the result).
I agree with the main opinion to the extent that it
holds that, under the circumstances presented in this case,
where no application for rehearing was filed in the Court of
Civil Appeals, T.M.F. should have filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus seeking de novo review of the Court of
Civil Appeals' decision to deny his request for mandamus
relief. See Rule 21(e), Ala. R. App. P.  However, I do not
believe that anything in Rule 21, Ala. R. App. P., or Rule
39, Ala. R. App. P., forbids this Court from electing to
treat an improperly filed petition for a writ of certiorari
as a petition for a writ of mandamus if the improperly filed
petition for a writ of certiorari otherwise meets the
requirements of Rule 21.  One such requirement is that the
petition contain "[a]n appendix including copies of any
order or opinion or parts of the record that would be
essential to an understanding of the matters set forth in
the petition." Rule 21(a)(1)(E), Ala. R. App. P.
In the present case, I must conclude that T.M.F. is not
entitled to relief -- whether his petition is treated as a
petition for a writ of certiorari or as a petition for a
 
9
1180454
writ of mandamus -- because he failed, pursuant to both Rule
39(d)(5)(C), Ala. R. App. P., and Rule 21(a)(1)(E), to place
any facts before this Court.  With no facts properly before
this Court, there is nothing we can review.  Accordingly, I
concur in the judgment to dismiss T.M.F.'s petition under
these circumstances.
 
10