Cite as 2022 Ark. 107



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV - 21 - 479 JAMES MIDDLEBROOKS APPELLANT

V.
SOLOMON GRAVES, SECRETARY , ARKANSAS COMMUNITY CORRECTION; JOHN FELTS, CHAIRMAN, ARKANSAS PAROLE BOARD APPELLEES Opinion Delivered: May 19, 2022 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 35CV

- 21 - 124 ] HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS , JUDGE APPEAL DISMISSED

.

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Associate Justice James Middlebrooks appeals from an order of the circuit court that dismissed his declaratory

- judgment and mandamus action because Middlebrooks had failed to provide proof that service of process was perfected with respect to the two named defendants

p ursuant to Rule 4(i)(1) (2020) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit court dismissed the complaint without indicating whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. However, whe n service is not made on a defendant within 1 20 days of the filing of the complaint, a circuit court must dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling those claims. McCullough v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 78

. This court will not reach the merits of an appeal if the order appealed from is not final. Noon er v. Kelley , 2019 Ark. 80, 568 S.W.3d 766

. W hether an order is final and subject2

to appeal is a jurisdictional question that this court will raise sua sponte. Id

. The law provides that valid service of process is necessary to give a circuit court jurisdiction over a defendant.
Id

. Valid service of process must be made within 120 days after the filing of the complaint unless there is a motion to extend. Id

. If service is not obtained within the 120 - day period and no such motion is made, dismissal is required upon motion or upon the court ’ s own
initiative. Id

. A plaintiff whose case has been dismissed without prejudice for the first time under Rule 4(i) may refile those claims; therefore, the order appealed from is not a final, appealable order. Id

. Here, the record indicates that the petition for declaratory and mandamus relief is Middlebrooks’s first such petition , and he may refile the petition and perfect service of

process in accordance with the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Middlebrooks insists on appeal that he had perfected service in accordance with the r ules, but there is no proof that
service was perfected with in the required time frame

. Further, Middlebrooks claims that a copy of a returned certified - mail receipt addres sed to the Arkansas Attorney General is proof of timely service of process in his civil
action , suggesting that service of process on the o ffice of the Arkansas Attorney General is equal to service on the named defendants

. He is mistaken. The attorney gene ral’s office is a separate constitutional office, not merely an arm of the executive branch. Taylor v. Zanone Prop s. , 342 Ark. 465, 30 S.W.3d 74 (2000)

. The attorney general’s office represents the agencies and departments of the State only when its services are needed and the request for services has been certified by the agency to the a ttorney g eneral

. Id

. In sum, the a ttorney3

g eneral is not an agent for service of process for state agencies as assumed by Mi ddle brooks. Furthermore, Rule 4 makes cle ar that service of process shall be made on the individual officers and employees of a government entit y that ha ve been named in a civil action. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 4( f)(17) (2020). As stated above, proper service of process is required to give the circuit court jurisdiction over the defendant. Nooner , 2019 Ark. 80, 568 S.W.3d 766

. Without proper service on the named defendants , the circuit court lack ed jurisdiction over those defendants , and w hen the circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court al so lacks jurisdiction

. Grant v. State , 2020 Ark. 282

. Appeal dismissed. W OMACK , J., concurs without opinion

. James Middlebrooks , pro se appellant. Leslie Rutledge , Att’y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp , Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.